Bullet Point Synopsis about Cull:

  • The badger cull will go ahead this summer in Gloucestershire and W.Somerset and will be repeated for three further years to keep numbers down. DEFRA says between 70-95% of the population need to be culled.
  • A safe licensed vaccine for cattle exists,but has been banned by EU because it interferes with cattle TB skin test. UK fear beef/dairy exports will suffer if they initiate vaccine. A new (DIVA) test exists that does not interfere with the skin tests.
  • It is still illegal to injure or kill a badger (apart from those licensed to do so by Natural England).
  • An independent scientific study group commissioned by the Govt has stated unequivocally that the badger cull will not reduce Bovine TB to any significance and could actually worsen the spread of the disease.
  • It is impossible to tell if a live badger is suffering from Bovine TB. This can only be confirmed once they are dead, given a post mortem and body samples cultured.
  • A badger with Bovine TB is more likely to die from a road traffic accident than to die from the disease as a 6th (1,000 a week) of the population dies on our roads every year.
  • Killing badgers upsets their social behaviour causing them to roam further as naturally they are confined by their own territorial boundaries. This is has been found to be associated with an increase of TB in cattle in areas around culling.
  • Cattle to cattle transmission rate of bTB is 80%.
  • DEFRA claims cases of bTB are rising, but this is because more cattle tests are being carried out.
  • Southern Ireland have removed badgers from 30% of their land mass and Bovine TB in cattle is still increasing.
  • The cattle skin test is flawed. Almost a fifth of infected cattle (17%) are discovered at abattoirs having failed to be found by regular testing of herds on the farm. Healthy cattle are regularly misdiagnosed and slaughtered for no reason.
  • Farmers are compensated for all cattle slaughtered as a result of testing positive for bTB.
  • More dairy cattle in the UK suffer significant pain & discomfort from lameness & mastitis every year than from bTB (see graph for reasons for culling)

References:

Lord Krebs trial - Fiona Harvey & agencies guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 July 2011 The Grocer (for supermarket policies)

Oral vaccine trials latest: http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/07/03/2013/138028/oral-badger-vaccine-fleld-trial-under-way.htm

Websites of:

With thanks to James Stewart (Devon Badger Group), Sian Waters and Mark Jones (HSI)

Dear Lee Borrell, 

BOVINE TB
  
Thank you for your email of 21 February about bovine TB. I have been asked to reply.

I would like to start by making clear that no decision has yet been taken on whether to permit badger culling.  Defra received a large number of responses to our recent consultation, which we are considering carefully.  This is a difficult and sensitive issue and we need to get it right.  We will announce our decision as part of a comprehensive and balanced TB Eradication Programme for England.

As you may know, badgers are not an endangered species. In GB, badger protection is provided by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (PoBA) and the Wildlife and Countryside 1981.
 
Under the PoBA, licences may be issued by Natural England to kill or take badgers or to interfere with their setts for the purpose of:

•      Preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property;
•      Preventing the spread of disease.

Badgers and their setts are fully protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Under section 1(1) of the Act it is an offence to kill (or attempt to kill) a badger without a licence. Anyone found guilty of unlawfully killing (or attempting to kill) a badger, is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for up to six months and / or a fine of up to £5000, applicable to each offence / badger killed.

Badgers are listed as a protected species under Appendix III of the Bern Convention. However, the Convention allows regulated management of protected species providing this is not 'detrimental to the survival of the population concerned'.
 
Vaccination of either cattle or wildlife is a potential long-term option for reducing the risk of bovine TB in Great Britain. However, it needs to be recognised that vaccines can never represent a single answer to the problem of bovine TB. Vaccination is a risk reduction measure, most likely to be successful in controlling bovine TB when used alongside other disease control measures.

It should be noted that in addition to the scientific challenges in vaccine development, there are a number of key policy, legal, commercial, regulatory and manufacturing issues surrounding the implementation of a vaccine.
In regards to badger vaccines, Defra funded the development of an injectable vaccine against bovine TB, which was licensed for use in badgers in March 2010 (Badger BCG), and is available for use by suitably trained and licensed personnel. As this is an injectable vaccine, badgers need to be trapped in order to be vaccinated. This vaccine is currently being used in the Badger Vaccine Deployment Project in Gloucestershire. Work is also continuing to develop an oral vaccine. The earliest projected date for a licensed BCG oral badger vaccine is 2015.

The aim of a sustained vaccination campaign would be, over time, to achieve 'herd immunity' in the badger population - a state in which a large enough proportion of the badgers was protected such that the disease could not be sustained in the badger population. This will take time to develop, particularly as BCG vaccination is not 100% effective in preventing TB in badgers. This is for two reasons: the vaccine will not fully protect or prevent infection in all uninfected badgers that are vaccinated and, as far as we are aware, the vaccine will not benefit badgers that are already infected. In addition, the fact that the first injectable badger vaccine was only licensed in March 2010 means that there is only very limited experience of using vaccination in the field and no hard evidence on the contribution badger vaccination would make to reducing the disease in cattle.

Benefits from vaccination would therefore be expected to accrue incrementally during a vaccination campaign, as the number of badgers immunised successfully increased and as infected badgers died off naturally. The larger the proportion of infected badgers within the population, the longer it would take to build up herd immunity.  Modelling work carried out by the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) indicates that longer badger vaccination campaigns would give better TB control in both badgers and cattle, and are more likely to be economically justified than short campaigns, but this has not been tried in the field.

One of the main benefits of vaccination is that it would not disrupt badger social groups and therefore this method of controlling bovine TB in badgers does not have the potential risks arising from the perturbation associated with culling. Moreover, the stable social structure of badger populations may actually enhance the efficacy of vaccination. Similarly, although the positive benefits of fragmented vaccination would be lower than those achieved by vaccinating over contiguous areas, as badger herd immunity would be harder to establish, nevertheless unlike culling, there would be no detrimental effect from vaccinating in this manner.

In areas with high and persistent levels of bovine TB in cattle, vaccination would not reduce the weight of infection in the badger population as quickly as widespread, effective and efficient culling. However, it is still likely to reduce disease risk and have greater disease control benefits than taking no action to tackle bovine TB in badgers. Vaccination could reduce the prevalence and severity of bovine TB in a badger population, could reduce the rate of onward transmission of disease to cattle and, by using it in combination with culling strategies, could maximise the benefits of both options.

Cattle vaccination has the potential to reduce the prevalence, incidence and spread of bovine TB in the cattle population and could also reduce the severity of a herd breakdown regardless of infection being introduced by wildlife or cattle.  However, a cattle vaccine will not guarantee that all cattle vaccinated are fully protected.
 
Cattle vaccines are currently prohibited under EU legislation as the lead candidates are based on BCG, which interferes with the tuberculin skin test. Vaccinated cattle would therefore react as if infected, and herds could not be declared Officially TB Free (OTF). Therefore, as part of the UK research programme we are developing a diagnostic test to Differentiate between Infected and Vaccinated Animals (a so-called 'DIVA test'). Changes will be required to the EU legislation to allow this test to be used in place of, or alongside the tuberculin skin test to confer OTF status.
We aim to have the DIVA test validated and the first cattle vaccine licensed by the end of 2012.  However, due to the need to change EU legislation we anticipate that these could not be used in the field before 2015 at the earliest.

The possible future use of cattle vaccines has been discussed with the European Commission and the Commission has indicated that an accredited DIVA test will be critical for a cattle vaccination policy. We will continue to work closely with the Commission and other Member States on this.

To help us provide you with the best service we can, Defra's Customer Contact Unit would appreciate your views on the quality of service we have provided in replying to your email.  Please take a couple of minutes to complete our online survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DefraCustomerSatisfactionSurveyMarch2011.  Thank you.

Yours Sincerely,
TB Correspondence Team
Defra - Customer Contact Unit

Dear Sir/Madam, REF:DWOE000229134 – ‘A LOAD OF BULL’ Thank you for your email of 12 May about the newspaper article ‘A load of bull’. I have been asked to reply. During the 1930s, a large proportion of dairy cows were infected with M. bovis. Many were kept near large cities to provide urban dwellers with fresh milk and most were closely confined, in poorly ventilated cowsheds, which are ideal conditions for the disease to spread. Many infected cows developed TB in the udders and shed M. bovis in the milk. Because most milk was drunk raw (untreated), milk-borne human M. bovis infection was a major public health risk and an important source of TB in humans. During this time, over 50,000 new cases of human TB were recorded each year in Great Britain and it was estimated that 2,500 people were dying annually from TB caused by M. bovis. To try to control the problem, in 1935 the Government introduced a voluntary TB testing scheme for cattle. Any animals that were positive to these tests were slaughtered. To try to stop bTB spreading to other herds, cattle were not allowed to be moved from farms affected with bTB. This testing and slaughter programme became compulsory in 1950 and by 1980 it had reduced the national incidence of TB in cattle to a very low level. In addition to this, routine pasteurisation (heat treatment) of cows’ milk and inspection of cattle carcases at slaughterhouses were gradually put in place to further protect public health. Although the incidence of bTB has increased over the last 15 years, the testing and slaughter programme remains central to our strategy to stop its spread. In November 2004 we introduced enhanced testing and control measures to help improve the detection of bTB, so that action can be taken quickly to prevent the spread of the disease. More information can be found on the November 2004 measures. In December 2005, we also announced pre-movement testing in England and Wales to help reduce the risk of bTB spreading between herds. More information can be found on the testing pages of this website. The Government is committed to finding the best way to combat bTB, backed by robust evidence. Our wide-ranging programme of research continues to support this aim. More information can be found on the Research & Development pages of our website. Please see the link below: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/abouttb/index.htm

I hope this information is helpful Yours faithfully, A Broderick Defra - Customer Contact Unit Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

Thanks for the info - but that does not address the specific point of the bull in question...and of compassion in individual cases. The method of "slaughter" to stop a disease would not be allowed were the disease carried by human beings. It is only because we are dealing with animals used for consumption that such unethical behaviour is allowed. If there was a disease in the human population - slaughter would not be on the agenda - the policy is speciesist. http://leebor2.100webspace.net/Zymic/chimp.html

http://leebor2.100webspace.net/Zymic/singer.html

Only the mind of a NAZI discerns slaughter as a response to a disease.

Our ref: DWOE278561/LH

July 2012

Dear Sir/Madam,

BOVINE TB

Thank you for your email of 13 July expressing your views on badger culling as part of a package of measures to reduce the spread of bovine TB.

TB is a serious animal health problem and is devastating for affected farmers. Around 26,000 cattle were slaughtered in England in 2011 as part of controlling the disease. The problem is particularly acute in west and south-west England, and is worsening. The cost of the disease to the taxpayer is huge and is set to top £1 billion in England over the next ten years if we do not take more action.

Bovine TB is predominantly a disease of cattle but can affect a range of species. Evidence shows that there is a significant reservoir of infection in badgers. The disease is transmitted between cattle, between badgers, and between badgers and cattle.

Defra veterinary and scientific advice is that badger culling in high cattle TB incidence areas, carried out in line with the strict licence criteria, will reduce the number of infected badgers and thus reduce the weight of TB infection in badger populations in the treatment area more quickly than vaccination. This will therefore have a greater and more immediate beneficial impact on the spread of TB to cattle and the incidence of infection in cattle.

The proposed policy is firmly based on evidence from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Using the results of this trial (based on an average of five years’ culling plus a 4-year post-cull period), culling over an area of 150km2 could be expected to lead to an average 16 per cent reduction in TB incidence in the local area. This figure was agreed by an independent panel of scientists at a meeting with Professor Bob Watson, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser. A summary of the key conclusions from this meeting is available on the Defra website at:

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/documents/bovinetb-scientificexperts-110404.pdf.

The ability of industry to deliver culling in such a way as to achieve this benefit is one of judgement and we are fully convinced that they can and will approach this responsibly and professionally. There are strict criteria that applicants for a licence to cull badgers would have to meet and Natural England will be closely monitoring adherence to these conditions.

We already have a robust set of measures in place to tackle cattle to cattle transmission, including compulsory testing, slaughter of infected animals and movement restrictions on infected herds. However, we also need to accept that we are at the point where cattle measures alone are not enough to prevent the spread of disease in the worst affected areas. In order to stop it spreading further we need to address the issue of infected badgers passing the disease to cattle. We know that no country in the world that has a wildlife reservoir of the disease has successfully eradicated TB in cattle without addressing its presence in the wildlife population.

On 14 December the Secretary of State announced that the Government is launching a carefully-managed and science-led policy of badger control, as part of a package of measures to tackle TB in cattle. The policy will be piloted initially in two areas in 2012 to confirm our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. Groups of farmers in West Gloucestershire and West Somerset are able to apply to Natural England for licences to cull badgers to control bovine TB in cattle. Famers in these two areas will now submit a full application to Natural England, which will assess whether the application meets the licensing criteria which Defra has set out in its Guidance to Natural England. The application process will include an opportunity for the public to comment on the application. Badger control licences will be issued by Natural England under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to enable groups of farmers and landowners in these areas to reduce badger populations at their own expense. An independent panel of experts will oversee and evaluate the pilots and report back to Government, and Ministers will then decide whether the policy should be rolled out more widely.

Applications for licences will only be considered for a cull area of at least 150 square kilometres over a minimum of four years, and with culling to be conducted by trained and proficient operators. Groups of farmers will have to take reasonable measures to identify barriers and buffers, such as rivers, coastlines and motorways, or areas where there are no cattle or where vaccination of badgers occurs, at the edge of culling areas to minimise the ‘perturbation effect’, where disturbing the badger population could cause an increase in TB in cattle in the surrounding area.

Developing affordable and useable vaccines for cattle and badgers is our ultimate goal and the Secretary of State has announced that Defra will make available up to £250,000 a year over the next three years to support and encourage badger vaccination. An injectable badger vaccine is already available but there are practical difficulties with this, which means that it is not a realistic option for dealing with the problem in the short term. Developing an oral badger vaccine and a cattle vaccine remains a top priority for the Government, and Defra is investing a further £20m in vaccines research and development over five years but we cannot say with any certainty when these vaccines might be ready to deploy.

Full details of the package of measures announced on 14 December can be found on the Defra website at: www.defra.gov.uk .

Yours sincerely,

TB-Correspondence Team

Defra - Customer Contact Unit
DWOE256366/AD

Dear Sir/Madam,

Bovine TB and Badgers

Thank you for your email to the Secretary of State expressing your views on badger culling as part of a package of measures to reduce the spread of bovine TB.

TB is a serious animal health problem and is devastating for affected farmers. Nearly 25,000 cattle were slaughtered in England in 2010 as part of controlling the disease. The problem is particularly acute in west and south-west England, and is worsening. The cost of the disease to the taxpayer is huge and is set to top £1 billion in England over the next ten years if we do not take more action.

Bovine TB is predominantly a disease of cattle but can affect a range of species. Evidence shows that there is a significant reservoir of infection in badgers. The disease is transmitted between cattle, between badgers, and between badgers and cattle.

Defra veterinary and scientific advice is that badger culling in high cattle TB incidence areas, carried out in line with the strict licence criteria, will reduce the number of infected badgers and thus the weight of TB infection in badger populations in the treatment area more quickly than vaccination, and therefore have a greater and more immediate beneficial impact on the spread of TB to cattle and the incidence of infection in cattle.

The proposed policy is firmly based on evidence from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Using the results of this trial (based on an average of five years’ culling plus a 4-year post-cull period), culling over an area of 150km2 could be expected to lead to an average 16 per cent reduction in TB incidence in the local area. This figure was agreed by an independent panel of scientists at a meeting with Professor Bob Watson, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser. A summary of the key conclusions from this meeting is available on the Defra website at:

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/documents/bovinetb-scientificexperts-110404.pdf.

The ability of industry to deliver culling in such a way as to achieve this benefit is one of judgement and we are fully convinced that they can and will approach this responsibly and professionally. There are strict criteria that applicants for a licence to cull badgers would have to meet and Natural England will be closely monitoring adherence to these conditions.

We already have a robust set of measures in place to tackle cattle to cattle transmission, including compulsory testing, slaughter of infected animals and movement restrictions on infected herds. However, we also need to accept that we are at the point where cattle measures alone are not enough to prevent the spread of disease in the worst affected areas. In order to stop it spreading further we need to address the issue of infected badgers passing the disease to cattle. We know that no country in the world that has a wildlife reservoir of the disease has successfully eradicated TB in cattle without addressing its presence in the wildlife population.

On 14 December the Secretary of State announced that the Government is launching a carefully-managed and science-led policy of badger control, as part of a package of measures to tackle TB in cattle. The policy will be piloted initially in two areas in 2012 to confirm our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. An independent panel of experts will oversee and evaluate the pilots and report back to Government, and ministers will then decide whether the policy should be rolled out more widely. Prospective areas for the pilots will be put forward to Defra by the farming industry, from which two will be selected and invited to apply for a culling licence. Natural England will assess the applications against the licence criteria and decide whether or not to grant licences.

The Secretary of State has issued guidance to Natural England, which sets out strict criteria that applicants for a licence to cull badgers have to meet. Badger control licences will be issued by Natural England under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to enable groups of farmers and landowners in the worst affected areas to reduce badger populations at their own expense.

Applications for licences will only be considered for a cull area of at least 150 square kilometres over a minimum of four years, and with culling to be conducted by trained and proficient operators. Groups of farmers will have to take reasonable measures to identify barriers and buffers, such as rivers, coastlines and motorways, or areas where there are no cattle or where vaccination of badgers occurs, at the edge of culling areas to minimise the ‘perturbation effect’, where disturbing the badger population could cause an increase in TB in cattle in the surrounding area.

Developing affordable and useable vaccines for cattle and badgers is our ultimate goal and the Secretary of State has announced that Defra will make available up to £250,000 a year over the next three years to support and encourage badger vaccination. An injectable badger vaccine is already available but there are practical difficulties with this, which means that it is not a realistic option for dealing with the problem in the short term. Developing an oral badger vaccine and a cattle vaccine remains a top priority for the Government, and Defra will be investing a further £20m in vaccines research and development over the next five years, but we cannot say with any certainty when these vaccines might be ready to deploy.

Full details of the package of measures announced on 14 December can be found on the Defra website at: www.defra.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,

TB Correspondence Team

Defra - Customer Contact Unit
Please can you tell me if Bob Watson the scientific adviser mentioned in your response has any knowledge of the science of Chaotic mathematics,and if not - why not?

It is critically pertinent that it be understood that "results of trials" are not a clear indication of how populations influence one another:

http://www.medlockandtame.org.uk/natnum2.html

Work done by Sir Robert May - one time adviser to the UK government shows the situation is much more complex than can be shown by "trials" and that in fact the results shown in the wildlife trust document are to be expected from small scale culls - outside of any ethics,the numbers show that you cannot just cull in isolation - I fully expect that Bob Watson OUGHT to know the maths on the above link - I would like to know IF he in fact does?