A GUIDE TO SURVEILLANCE

JOHNE’S DISEASE

2

3

Contents Title Page number

An Introduction to Johne’s 4

Technical Impacts of Johne’s 5

Logical approaches to dealing with Johne’s 6

Developing a plan for surveillance and control 8

A guide to report availability 12

Herdwise reports - summary report 13

Herdwise reports - High and low risk reports 14

Herdwise reports - Historic report 15

Herdwise reports - Cohort Monitor reports 17

HerdTracker report 18

Johne’s analysis in InterHerd + software 19

Outlook 20

Cattle purchasing checklist 21

References 22

4

An Introduction to Johne’s

Johne’s disease is a bacterial disease caused by the organism Mycobacterium Avium subspecies

paratuberculosis (MAP). Infection results in a thickening of the intestinal wall. This prevents the

animal from successfully absorbing nutrients and thus body condition may start to diminish in

infected animals.

The disease causes considerable production losses within both dairy and beef herds worldwide.

Clinical symptoms also include scour and weight loss. However, often the disease can exist

unnoticed within a herd where culling rates are high as animals may be culled for repeated high

Somatic Cell Count (SCC), repeat mastitis, poor yields, infertility or lameness long before clinical

symptoms are evident. In some individuals, the immunosuppressant effects of Johne’s could be

the underlying cause of these commonly seen symptoms.

The main route of infection is via faeces from infected animals contaminating youngstock housing

and pastures. However, transmission is also possible via milk, colostrum and intra uterine.

Animals are at their most susceptible in their first 6 months of life, with the first month contributing

to the highest risk of infection (80% of cases). Johne’s management therefore includes

identifying cattle that are infected, avoiding contact of these animals with youngstock (including

their own calves) and the avoidance of pooling milk or colostrums from infected animals for calf

rearing. MAP can exist within the soil for over a year and thus care should be taken when

spreading slurry or cow grazing on youngstock pastures.

Various estimates have been made regarding the UK prevalence of Johne’s. In 2006, DEFRA

ran a survey that indicated 34.7% of herds were affected by Johne’s (DEFRA report, 2010). An

internal analysis using over 900 30-cow screens performed over a 6 month period in 2011

indicated that one or more positive result was obtained in 68.9% of the screens (NML,

unpublished results). The prevalence of affected herds is likely to have grown since 2006 due to

the increased movement of cattle as a result of bTB. This is a widespread problem.

Further analyses of NMR Herdwise data (unpublished results) have shown the average within

herd prevalence of repeat-positive testing animals to be under 10% with the majority of herds

having a within herd prevalence of <6%. This would indicate that it is possible to manage the

disease on the majority of farms.

What is Johne’s disease?

How is Johne’s spread?

Johne’s disease - the wider context

5

For farms to be motivated to tackle infectious disease issues on farm there must be a tangible

benefit in doing so.

The control and prevention of Johne’s disease will:

Reduce or prevent the loss of production and income that results in disease.

Reduce the animal welfare implications of Johne’s infection.

Reduce the levels of forced culls and maximise the value of infected animals in the cull

market by allowing farmers to predict when condition and welfare may suffer and control

when animals can be removed from the herd.

Increase the value of breeding stock for farms which can demonstrate the herd disease

status or show that they are taking a proactive approach to disease control.

Reduce the level of MAP in milk and the environment, in line with the Food Standards

Agency recommendations.

Technical impacts of Johne’s

A US study (Villarano et al, 2005) found that Johne’s infected animals:

Gave on average 4000kg less milk in their lifetime

Were 5 x more likely to be lame

Were 2 x more likely to develop mastitis/SCC problems

Were 1.8 x more likely to develop digestive problems

Further preliminary studies have been performed on Herdwise and NMR data to establish if the

same trends are followed in the UK. This is available at www.nationalmilklabs.co.uk.

6

Logical approaches to dealing with Johne’s

Figure 1. This schematic illustrates a logical approach to tackling Johne’s in a dairy farm

for NMR recorded herds

It is important to establish a base status of the herd. This includes three strands:

A herd-level test to provide an indication of prevalence

An assessment of the risk of entry of the disease (Biosecurity)

An assessment of the risk of spread of the disease (Bio containment)

A useful risk assessment tool can be found at MyHealthyHerd (www.myhealthyherd.com).

Bulk milk antibody ELISA testing is not recommended as a suitable tool for indicating prevalence

of Johne’s within a herd. A low result is misleading. A bulk milk result can be low even if 9-12%

of the animals contributing to the tank are testing ‘high’ for the disease (NMR analysis,

unpublished results).

Establishing a start point

7

30-cow screens are recommended as a start point to assess status. The screen must be

targeted at the animals most likely to be affected by the disease. NMR can automatically select

30 cows based on the last 6 herd recordings for an NMR herd. A study by the University of

Reading found that lactation number (between 3 and 6) and SCC were the parameters with the

highest association with positive Johne’s status. This automatic selection is available both as an

ad hoc screen or as the HerdTracker service (automatic selection of 30 cows quarterly).

If cows are selected by the vet/farmer, it is best to consider animals (in order of priority):

Between 3 to 7 years old

Repeat high SCC or mastitis cows

Cows affected by lameness

Cows demonstrating a drop in milk yield

Generally depressed individuals.

This method is useful not only as an indication of herd status but as a tool to demonstrate to the

farmer that Johne’s is present. Culling decisions should not be based on a single milk test. The

30-cow screen is simply a herd-level indicator. If individual cows return a ‘high’ result, they

should be treated as a risk to the herd. These animals can be marked using Nordic Star’s ankle

straps (www.nordicstar.co.uk or 0800 7319465) or other practical means. Confirmatory testing

can be carried out by blood or milk sampling through NML but care must be taken when

comparing blood and milk test results (presentations are available within the vet section of

www.nationalmilklabs.co.uk).

If the 30-cow screen indicates that Johne’s is present on the farm, the risk assessment should be

consulted to establish if the risk of spread is likely. If this is the case, a degree of improved calf

management must be considered along with a veterinary control plan and ongoing quarterly

individual cow monitoring (Herdwise).

When the 30-cow screen indicates that herd-level prevalence is extremely low or negative, it is

important to consider the farm’s risk of disease entry. If this is high, the farm should monitor

regularly which may involve Herdwise (as a thorough solution) or HerdTracker (as a base level of

surveillance involving an automatic selection of 30 cows from NMR records quarterly).

Next steps

8

NMLs milk and blood ELISA tests for MAP have very similar test sensitivities. Performing a single

milk or blood test could be seen as comparable. However, it is difficult to compare milk and blood

results directly as much depends on the timing of sampling. IgGs are transferred from blood to

milk in the early stage of lactation meaning that blood samples are more likely to yield a lower

result, however, the reduced yield toward the end of the lactation may infer a greater likelihood of

a positive result in milk at this stage. Work from a Danish study by Prof. Soren Nielsen shows that

milk test sensitivity is relatively high for high shedding animals compared to low or intermittent

shedding animals. This highlights the importance of repeat testing to detect MAP. Repeat testing

using blood is time consuming and costly. The ability to use milk samples for dairy herds is

advantageous as it is quick and easy, making it a cost effective way of testing when combined

with milk recording.

Figure 2 - The predictive ability of the milk ELISA to highlight infected animals with

different shedding patterns

Relative merits of milk and blood testing

Developing a plan for surveillance and control

9

We know that the majority of animals seroconvert (mount an immune response) to infection at 2-4

years old (Nielsen and Ersboll, 2006). By screening every animal in the milking herd quarterly,

we generate a result profile (see Table 2) for all animals in this ‘high risk’ age range allowing us to

make management decisions based on pre-empting their potentially infectious status.

To illustrate the benefit of quarterly screening, please see fig 3, which shows a schematic

presentation of the probability of testing positive in ELISA given the animal is infectious at

different ages. For 3 different test-frequencies: 1, 2 and 4 tests/cow/yr. The shaded areas

represent the uncertainty related to each line (taken from Nielsen S.S., 2007).

% r

eli

ab

ilit

y

By annually blood testing a herd with medium to high prevalence and a high risk of entry or

spread within the herd, we potentially miss all of those animals that become a risk after the test.

Nielsen found that repeat milk testing with 4 tests per year resulted in detection of 70-90% of high

shedders and only 25% if the animal was tested one year before shedding (Fig 3). These

animals could be transmitting the disease to many calves before they are detected by the next

year’s annual blood test. Furthermore, we are not testing the animals at those critical times

where separation decisions could be made. For example, we could test a cow mid lactation and

she could return a low test result. If we were to retest her prior to calving, she may test high.

That is a risky situation in terms of disease transmission. Quarterly milk testing would have

flagged that she is a cow to manage carefully.

Once a herd has a low enough prevalence with low risks of entry and spread, we would

recommend a cohort milk test. This would involve testing 30-cows quarterly or NMR’s

HerdTracker service. These cows are automatically selected using NMR data based on their age

and SCC offences. For pricing of this service, please go to www.nmr.co.uk.

Figure 3

10

Management of high risk animals (taken from Nielsen, S.S. – PhD

Thesis)

Once high risk animals are identified, it is important that transmission to susceptible animals does

not occur. Due to their susceptibility, calves require the most rigorous protection. Transmission of

MAP occurs via faeces, milk, colostrums and in the uterus. Therefore, calves should at all times

be protected from faeces, milk and colostrums obtained from high risk cows. Moreover, high-risk

animals with the highest risk of being infectious may be culled prior to calving if deemed

necessary. If a system is established to manage these high-risk cows, there is no need to

establish routines to manage all cows as if they were infectious. Many farmers may be reluctant

to establish such procedures for all cows, as they can be very time-consuming. Risk-based

management using this system can be cost-effective, but whether a risk-based approach or a non

-risk-based approach is most cost-effective depends on the amount of labour required to reduce

transmission (Kudahl et. al., 2008).

Management of non-affected test-positive animals

A challenge is presented by the management of repeated results, particularly if reacting cows do

not appear to be affected by the MAP infection. These animals may or may not be infectious,

because antibodies occur in approximately 20% of animals 3-4 years prior to onset of detectable

shedding, and they may become test negative in the meantime (Nielsen, 2008). In many cases

attempts to confirm that a cow is infected using faecal culture may fail (Nielsen, 2008), and it is

therefore of the utmost importance to trust the results, even though there is a high risk that false-

positive reactions have occurred. A false-positive in this situation may be a result of a) non-MAP

antibodies, or b) MAP antibodies in an infected cow that has not yet become infectious. It is not

possible to easily discriminate between the two kinds of case. However, a concurrent drop in milk

production (Nielsen et al., 2009 VI) might indicate that an infection associated with MAP is

ongoing. Cows with repeated positive ELISA tests have a higher probability of shedding MAP

than cows with fluctuating responses (Nielsen, 2008). Reactors that are not obviously affected or

have fluctuating ELISA responses may be considered of intermediate risk. Consequently, there

are three risk groups. These are referred to as red (High-risk), Amber (Moderate risk) and green

(Low-risk). Management of cows in the three groups can follow the guidance shown in Fig 4.

Figure 4

11

Testing and surveillance options Test option Test level Description Price Usefulnes

s

Bulk Milk test Herd This is not recommended due to poor

sensitivity. Over 10% of the animals

could be shedding Johne’s antibodies

into the bulk tank before a ‘low’

threshold becomes ‘medium’.

£ 0

Targeted 30-cow

screen

Herd This is a ‘herd level’ single indication of

the presence of Johne’s. It should be

targeted at those animals that are most

likely to be infected with Johne’s

££ ††

Quarterly 30-cow

screen -

HerdTracker

Herd A strong base level of surveillance for

low risk low prevalence herds. 30 cows

are automatically selected using NMR

records.

£££ †††

Whole herd

individual ad hoc

blood

Cow/Herd A useful starting point for beef herds,

block-calving herds in the dry period or

herds that are already being blood

tested for another reason. It is an

expensive way to test but there are

instances where it can be useful.

£££££ †††

Whole herd

individual ad hoc

milk

Cow/Herd This is a useful starting point for dairy

herds. It gives an informed snapshot of

herd-level prevalence. There is the

potential for false positive results for the

reasons outline in section 4.1 so

quarterly testing is recommended for a

cow-level status indication.

£££ †††

Quarterly whole

herd milk -

HerdWise

Cow This is the ultimate CHeCS accredited

surveillance model. Every cow in milk is

tested quarterly from NMR milk

recording samples. A test profile is

generated for each animal and this

forms a risk classification. This is the

most cost effective way to test the whole

herd regularly.

£££££ †††††††

Quarterly whole

herd blood

Cow An expensive way to test a dairy herd.

It would be effective if it were possible to

assign risk classifications to each cow.

There are no significant benefits to this

system compared to Herdwise (for dairy

herds) hence the classification module

is not available.

£££££££ †††††††

Table 1

12

A guide to report availability NMR’s Herdwise, HerdTracker and JESS (for non-NMR recorded herds) reports are available to

both the farmer and his/her vet via Herd Companion. To access these reports, click on the

Johne’s button which is found in the middle of the herd companion screen as seen in Fig 5 below.

To view Johne’s results from farmers not using these services please click on the disease monitor

tab. If vets do not have access to these data, they can call NMR customer services on 0844

7255567.

This section of the document highlights the HerdWise & HerdTracker reports available to vets and

farmers and explains the useful aspects of each type of report so that vets are better armed to

add consultative value to a farmer’s results.

The ‘Cohort Monitor’ report is only available to vets. This is to reduce the risk of misinterpretation

of the data.

The HerdWise reports currently available are:

High Risk Cows - available in pdf

Low Risk Cows - available in pdf

Herd Summary - available in pdf

Historical Data - available on screen

Cohort Monitor (with homebred and non homebred split) - available via Herd Companion Pro

High Risk Cows Low Risk Cows Herd Summary Historical Data Cohort Monitor

Figure 5

13

Herdwise reports Risk classification table

Figure 6

Risk level Herdwise

Classification

Johne’s

infection group

Definition

LOW

Green J0 Repeat ELISA –ve (minimum 2 tests)

Green J1 ELISA –ve but only one test

Green J2 ELISA –ve but +ve within 3 previous tests

HIGH

Yellow J3 ELISA –ve/+ve interchangeably

Yellow J4 Last ELISA +ve, all previous tests negative

Red J5 Repeat ELISA +ve (minimum 2 tests)

Summary report

The risk classification table (table 2) shows how the Herdwise scheme classifies cows into risk

groups of shedding MAP bacteria.

Table 2

This report provides a summary of the last 6 results for each cow in the herd. It allows the whole

herd to be viewed together and results are displayed in order of risk. As example report is shown

in Fig 6 below.

14

The high risk report is one of the most significant reports in the Herdwise service. This report

highlights which animals are of highest risk of shedding bacteria and thus highest risk of

transmitting the disease to susceptible animals. Predicted calving dates are shown so that cow

separation decisions can be made in good time. The milk yield predictor is added to the report so

that observations may be made for individual animals. An example report is shown in Figure 7

below.

Herdwise reports

Figure 7

High and low risk reports

The low risk report shows which animals have the lowest risk of shedding. This is useful for

decision making with regard to pooling of milk and colostrums and establishing which animals can

safely be calved in communal pens and yards. An example report is shown in Fig 8 below.

Figure 8

15

Herdwise reports Historic report

An aggregate data table summarises how many cows are in each risk group (J0-J5) along with a

summary of their ‘traffic light’ classification. This allows farmers to track the effectiveness of

control measures over several years. See Figure 10 below.

Figure 10

Figure 9

A graphical representation of ‘red’, ‘amber’ and ‘green’ cows is displayed as ‘numbers within herd’

and as a ‘percentage of the herd’. See Figure 9 below. These graphs illustrate trends in

prevalence over time.

16

Th

is c

olu

mn

show

s th

e

num

ber

of

day

s si

nce

th

e

cow

tes

ted

Th

e w

eig

ht

of

the

fon

t

den

ote

s th

e si

gn

ific

ance

of

the

test

res

ult

. 0 -

20

is

low

(fei

nt)

, 2

0 -

30 i

s m

ediu

m

(sta

ndar

d)

and

30+

is

hig

h

Th

is c

olu

mn

show

s th

e

hig

hes

t

Joh

ne’

s re

sult

on

rec

ord

.

Th

is c

olu

mn

den

ote

s

wh

eth

er t

he

cow

is

curr

entl

y pre

sen

t in

the

her

d. L

– l

ive

and

X -

sold

/cull

ed

A c

om

po

site

da

ta ta

ble

sh

ow

s the

te

st p

rofile

fo

r eve

ry c

ow

in

th

e m

ilkin

g h

erd

(pa

st a

nd

pre

sen

t). S

ee

Fig

11

be

low

.

Fig

ure

11

17

Herdwise reports

Cohort monitor report

This report (only available to Herd Companion Pro users) has been designed as a result of

farmers observing that groups of calves with consecutive ear tag numbers would all break down

with clinical signs of Johne’s but others would not. This would indicate that transmission may

have occurred synchronously for that cohort of calves. This report shows the current or latest

status (before the animal left the herd) according to the date the animal was born. The report will

only show results back to 2004 for animals that are over 36 months old. The aim is to establish

whether transmission may have occurred to a batch of calves and whether alarm should be

raised as a result of a trend. Animals that leave the herd will drop into the darker shaded area in

each bar. Further developments will include splitting this report between homebred and

non-homebred animals so that biosecurity risks can be illustrated and calving can be managed

effectively. Please note that the present calves will be unlikely to illustrate positive results for at

least 36 months so the view is retrospective.

Figure 12

This graphical profile is repeated for homebred and non homebred animals.

18

HerdTracker Report

The HerdTracker results graph and table can be found within Herd Companion as described on page 12. The HerdTracker report contains a graphical representation of the % high cows within each of your quarterly 30 cow screens. This allows the farmer and the vet to see if there is an increasing % of high cows. If Johne’s disease is found in the herd or if the % of high cows is increasing then upgrading to our HerdWise service is advised. The HerdTracker summary table, found below the graph, gives an overview of the results. There also is an option to download your results report to gain a list of the individual animals tested for Johne’s.

Graph and Table

19

Herdwise and ad hoc Johne’s results are automatically uploaded into InterHerd +. These results

can be analysed alongside recording data providing a powerful method of analysis to assist you in

advising farmers on control. Example illustrations are shown below in Fig 13 and in Fig 14. If you

require training in this software or would like more information, please contact customer services

on 0844 7255567.

Current cows - Health details

Possible disease statuses:

POS: Positive for Johne’s disease at the most recent milk test.

pNEG: Positive for Johne’s disease at a previous test(s), but negative at the most recent test. A

positive cow can never revert to negative status.

NEG: Negative for Johne’s disease at every test in the cows life. Note that NEG also indicates

tested within the last 12 months.

No test: Either never tested or a cow with no positive tests that has not been tested in the last 12

months.

1. PREGNANT cows that are either POSITIVE or pNEG for Johne’s disease. They are listed in

order of the predicted calving date.

Figure 13

Johne’s analysis in ‘InterHerd +’ software

2. POSITIVE status cows that are NOT pregnant. Listed in order of the number of months

since the cow was first tested positive.

Figure 14

20

Johne’s control is a long term exercise. However, as progress is made there is scope to reduce

the costs of surveillance and control. Though, control mechanisms need to be sufficient to detect

and prevent re-emergence of the disease. It is important to remember that ‘test and manage’ only

works in conjunction with a repeated cow-level test structure like Herdwise. For a herd to get to a

stage where they could reduce the level of surveillance to the HerdTracker service, they would

either need to maintain a low risk of entry and be free of disease or to employ a level of Improved

Farm Management (IFM). The Johne’s Action Group, endorsed by both DairyUK and DairyCo

have proposed the following strands that should cover every farm scenario.

Outlook

1) Improved Farm Management

2) Improved Farm Management & Strategic Testing

3) Improved Farm Management & Test and Cull

4) Biosecurity Protect and Monitor

5) Breed to Terminal Sire

6) Firebreak Vaccination

NMR have services to assist with the 3 strands highlighted in green (above). For strand 2, we

would recommend a background surveillance method (e.g. HerdTracker—strategically selecting

your highest risk cows). For strand 3 and 4 we would recommend Herdwise (whole herd quarterly

testing).

NMR also have ad hoc milk or blood testing services available.

Any level of Improved Farm Management should be considered with care due to the difficulty of

managing larger herds in this way.

Vaccination should be considered with extreme caution as it is important to remember the

potential effects on TB testing along with the fact that it is impossible to test for antibodies to

Johne’s in a vaccinated animal.

When breeding to terminal sires, it is important to ensure that no progeny end up becoming a

suckler cow or breeding bull. Animals must be slaughtered once finished.

21

Cattle purchasing checklist One of the biggest risk factors associated with the transmission of Johne’s is the purchase of

infected animals. It is therefore important that farmers are made aware of a set of simple

questions that could be asked of cattle vendors. These questions have been designed to provide

buyers with an accurate picture of how Johne’s has been managed on the vendor’s premises.

This should allow buyers to make an informed decision as to whether they are happy with the

answers before any animals have changed hands. To get a copy of this questionnaire please call

customer services on 0844 7255567 or visit www.nmr.co.uk.

Figure 16

22

DEFRA report - Guidance on control of Johne’s Disease in Dairy Herds. http://

archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/documents/johnesguidance.pdf

Kudahl, A.B., Nielsen, S.S. and Osergaard S. (2008). Economy, Efficacy and Feasibility of a risk-

based control program against Paratuberculosis. Journal of Dairy Science, 91 (12): 4599-4609.

Nielsen, S.S. and Ersboll A.K. (2006). Age at occurrence of Mycobacterium avium Subspecies

paratuberculosis in naturally infected dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 89 (12): 4557-4566.

Nielsen, S.S. (2007). Danish Control Program for Bovine Paratuberculosis. Cattle Practice 15 (2).

Nielsen, S.S. and Toft, N. (2008). Ante mortem diagnosis of paratuberculosis: A review of accura-

cies of ELISA, interferon-γ assay and faecal culture techniques. Veterinary Microbiology, 217-

235.

Villarano M.A. and Jordan E.R. (2005). Production effects of MAP in dairy cows. Proceedings of

International Johne’s conference

References

23

Section A: Premises Details

Section B: Vet Details

NML Johne’s Screening Programme Enrolment Form

Producer Name*

Farm Name*

Address*

Postcode*

Telephone

Email*

NMR HERD Number* / /

Last TB test date* :

PTO

Vet Name*

Vet Practice Name*

Practice Address*

Postcode

Telephone

Email*

Section C: Scheme Details

Circle months for testing (quarterly): J F M A M J J A S O N D

Your NMR monthly milk recording samples will automatically be used for this service.

Completed enrolment forms should be faxed to NML 01902 749938 or posted to National Milk Laboratories, Unit 26-29, Laches Close, Calibre Industrial Park, Four Ashes. Wolverhampton. WV10 7TZ

* = Mandatory Field

24

Section D: Declaration

- I wish to enrol the above farm on the HerdWise surveillance programme as specified above.

- I certify to the best of my knowledge that the details specified are correct

- All reports will be sent to the consulting veterinary surgeon via email (if given)

I agree to pay all fees payable under the HerdWise programme and accept that this contract is valid for a minimum of 12 months, renewable thereafter. Failure to pay such fees may result in suspension of the

service until full payment is received

Please tick as appropriate:

NMR to invoice the vet practice on a monthly basis

NMR to invoice the farm on a monthly basis

Vet Signature Date

Print Name of Vet

THE HERD WILL NOT BE ENROLLED WITHOUT A VETERINARY SIGNATURE

Farm Signature Date

Status (e.g. Owner/herdsman

Completed enrolment forms should be faxed to NML 01902 749938 or posted to National Milk Laboratories, Unit 26-29, Laches Close, Calibre Industrial Park, Four Ashes. Wolverhampton. WV10 7TZ

25

Johne’s 30-cow Screening Programme Enrolment Form

Section A: Premises Details

Section B: Vet Details

Producer Name*

Farm Name*

Address*

Postcode*

Telephone

Email*

NMR HERD Number* / /

Last TB test date* :

Vet Name*

Vet Practice Name*

Practice Address*

Postcode

Telephone

Email*

Section C: Scheme Details

Circle months for testing (quarterly): J F M A M J J A S O N D

Your NMR monthly milk recording samples will automatically be used for this service.

Completed enrolment forms should be faxed to NML 01902 749938 or posted to National Milk Laboratories, Unit 26-29, Laches Close, Calibre Industrial Park, Four Ashes. Wolverhampton. WV10 7TZ

* = Mandatory Field

26

Completed enrolment forms should be faxed to NML 01902 749938 or posted to National Milk Laboratories, Unit 26-29, Laches Close, Calibre Industrial Park, Four Ashes. Wolverhampton. WV10 7TZ

Section D: Declaration

- I wish to enrol the above farm on the HerdTracker surveillance programme as specified above.

- I certify to the best of my knowledge that the details specified are correct

- All reports will be sent to the consulting veterinary surgeon via email (if given)

- NMR to invoice the farm on a monthly basis

I agree to pay all fees payable under the HerdTracker programme and accept that this contract is valid for a minimum of 12 months, renewable thereafter. Failure to pay such fees may result in suspension of the

service until full payment is received.

Farm Signature Date

Status (e.g. Owner/herdsman)

27

28

NMR Customer Services

National Milk Records PLC

Fox Talbot House

Greenways Business Park

Bellinger Close

Chippenham

Wiltshire

SN15 1BN

Tel: 08447 255 567

Email: customerservices@nmr.co.uk

Website: www.nmr.co.uk

I148-261112