Wildlife Reservoirs, is the badger a costly distraction, a scapegoat ...?
22 Jul 2010, 6:43 PM
Prof John Bourne, who conducted the infamous ten year, government-funded study which showed that badger killing is a waste of time and money, recalled what he was told by a senior politician:
"Fine, John, we accept your science, but we have to offer farmers a carrot. And the only carrot we can possibly give them is culling badgers."
This strand on the forum deals mainly with the wildlife reservoirs involved in the bovine TB saga. In the UK this is, as we are probably all aware by now, believed to be mainly the badger. No other mammal has been studied in the UK as intensely as the badger so actually we don't really know just how other animals are implicated. In other countries different species are implicated. There are some anomalies too, including the example below.
Has anyone an explanation for the following!
According to last issue of Gwlad, Australia is now bTB free after 27 years of trying. We are told it has no wildlife reservoir. New Zealand is still aiming for eradication. It has a wildlife reservoir - possums - which are considered a pest species as not indigenous so are being culled - and vaccinated!
HOWEVER - possums ARE native to Australia and bTB was rife in country for years so - why are the Australian possums not a reservoir?
10 Feb 2012, 10:37 AM
Badger Trust gives DEFRA notice of legal challenge
The Badger Trust has sent a letter to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs giving them notice of the grounds of challenge which the Badger Trust intends to pursue if DEFRA does not set aside its decision to kill badgers in its measures to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. DEFRA’s final position should be known by 17 February.
David Williams, chairman of the Badger Trust, said: “The Badger Trust has responded in detail to both DEFRA’s consultation papers on culling and suggested viable alternatives. However, our concerns that the culls proposed will actually spread the disease have not been heeded. In the light of this and our concerns over the legality of the decision, we would be failing in our duty to badgers if we did not pursue a legal challenge despite the difficulty and cost risks involved. If there is an opportunity to save many thousands of healthy badgers, as there is here, we must take it on behalf of the many local badger groups and supporters on whose behalf the Badger Trust works. If successful it would also save farmers the expense of a policy which would not benefit them.
“Once again the Badger Trust leads the way in defence of this iconic indigenous mammal by challenging the legal basis of the Government’s decision. In April 2011 the Badger Trust, with the support of Pembrokeshire Against the Cull, embarked on legal proceedings to quash a second Order of the then Welsh Assembly Government to destroy badgers. As a result of the Badger Trust’s challenge, the matter was suspended pending the outcome of a comprehensive scientific review ordered by the new Welsh Government”.
The Badger Trust’s present action follows extensive legal advice as well as correspondence with DEFRA Ministers and officials to clarify the Department’s position on many topics of concern. Officers of the Badger Trust have also had several discussions with Ministers in person before the decision was announced. Matters raised included what has been decided, what else remains to be decided, when, and the process of implementation.
In short, the Badger Badger Trust considers that:
1. the culls proposed will not meet the strict legal test of “preventing the spread of disease” in the areas being licensed, and may amount to a recipe for spreading the disease. Quite contrary to the aims in the strict test set down in section 10(2)(a) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, DEFRA’s own evidence confirms that the proposed cull will in fact increase the spread of the disease in and around the cull zones. This is because a campaign of culling inevitably disrupts badgers’ normally stable social structures and causes them to roam further in search of food and territory, thereby prompting the spread of disease. Badgers outside the area culled are also likely to roam inward and take over the culled badgers setts. (This phenomenon is specific to badger ecology and social behaviour and is known as “perturbation”). Many cattle farmers in and around the cull zones are understandably very concerned about the risk that bovine TB will be spread onto their land as a result of the cull.
2. DEFRA’s cost impact assessment underpinning the decision is flawed because the cost assumptions are based on the free-shooting option which is assumed to be much cheaper. However, in correspondence with the Badger Trust, DEFRA recently confirmed that, if after the first year of piloting the plans, free-shooting is ruled out for being inhumane, ineffective or unsafe, then farmers will be legally obliged to continue the cull on a much more costly “trap and shoot” basis for the remaining years of their licence (and farmers will have to make a further upfront financial deposit on this basis plus a contingency sum of 25 per cent). These are significant cost risks for farmers but they are not properly reflected in the cost impact assessment which underpinned DEFRA’s decision. This may render the decision unlawful. (Farmers would be well advised to study the impact assessment which concludes that they will be out of pocket, even if free shooting were to be approved.)
3. the guidance which DEFRA issued to Natural England is invalid. The Secretary of State issued guidance to Natural England under section 15(2) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 as to how Natural England should exercise its functions. However, killing badgers is not in fact one of Natural England’s functions, which are mainly focussed on maintaining biodiversity. Even though DEFRA is making Natural England responsible for the administrative arrangements this does not mean that culling becomes one of Natural England’s functions. Therefore, the guidance was not correctly devised.
Will pilot badger-cull trials really be worth the effort?; asks Philip Hosking, South Hams farmer and president of the Small Farms Association. He certainly does not think so. He says he has seen some daft agricultural policies in his life, but he has to remind himself what this is all for – a 16% drop in bovine TB after nine years in the cull areas, if all goes to plan. In other words, if your herd had six TB reactors last year, you’re on track to have only five reactors in 2020. Worth the money and risk?
Phil has been following the development of the test to differentiate infected from vaccinated cattle. Evidence to support international validation of the test will be submitted to the international animal health standards organisation in the summer. This is an independent certification that should be acceptable as evidence of the efficacy of the test.
Surely now we should be asking that the EU amends the relevant directives and regulations to enable the development and use of a TB vaccine in cattle?
Press release from Badger Trust 20 January 2012 is set out below. Facts in this reveal just how few badgers have bTB and very few of these were found to have lesions. Culling must therefore be disproportionate; not cost effective, bad PR for the farming industry and not a sustainable solution for farmers.
'Specialists like Devon farmer **** **** can identify diseased setts, but often lack academic qualifications deemed necessary to do the job – a great pity’. News item: Western Morning News .
SUCH RURAL MYTHS as this are increasingly prevalent. The reality, says the Badger Trust, is that it is virtually impossible even for highly qualified scientists, let alone lay individuals, to detect infection in live, uncaged animals in the field. The exceptions - and these are rare - occur when the disease is extremely advanced and the badgers have severe lesions and are potentially highly infectious.
The complexities of proving the presence of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) - even in dead badgers - are many and expensive, and they are spelt out, says the Trust, in the 2007 report  of the scientists overseeing the £50 million Randomised Badger Culling Trials, acknowledged by the Coalition Government as the only sufficiently rigorous survey.
That same report showed that of the 9,919 badgers killed in the RBCT between 1998 and 2005 only 166 had severe lesions.
Dismissing claims that selective culling of diseased badgers is possible using field signs the Trust points out that for 39 years scientists studied about 30 social groups of undisturbed badgers at Woodchester Park, Gloucestershire . This showed that as many as 80 per cent of badgers never got bTB, with only five per cent becoming capable of passing on the disease. Research at Woodchester also demonstrated that infected badgers often shared setts with uninfected badgers, itself evidence that challenges the suggestion that any setts can be safely categorised as "infected".
Further research (4) also demonstrated that territories of social groups where bTB was particularly prevalent - ie "hotspots" - often abutted those of uninfected groups.
The Badger Trust draws particular attention to a report (5) in which Derek Mead, until recently a National Farmers’ Union council member, wrote: "I and a number of other farmers have a Plan B. It's based on using specialist knowledge to differentiate healthy setts from diseased ones and targeting only the latter. The clear-up rate is 100 per cent, the impact on TB in local herds remarkable and dramatic. But of course, those who possess the skills to carry out such operations do not have any letters after their names,which is why their expertise is not being recognised".
Says the Badger Trust: claims like this, and there have been others in south west media, are totally unproven, have no scientific validation, and raise worrying issues of illegal actions. To assert that such highly contentious methods have 100 per cent success clearly implies that they have been tried and tested and that badgers, as a direct result, have been killed.
Even now, on the eve of the Government’s highly contentious plan to launch licensed pilot "culls", badgers remain protected, as do their setts. Unlicensed slaughter is a crime.
'Why I won't be backing the badger cull', is the headline of the article by Stephen Carr in the online Farmers Weekly (http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/21/01/2012/130931/Why-I-won39t-be-backing-the-badger-cull.htm#.Txp_ZSB2n-E.twitter). Stephen runs an 800ha (1,950-acre) sheep, arable and beef farm on the South Downs near Eastbourne in partnership with his wife.
He is concerned regarding the cull proposal and in particular the potential security risks for farmers involved. He refers to the £500,000 estimate (per cull area) for the policing cost and the fact that areas will not be kept secret. BTB has dominated Stephen's farming life. Sometimes he wakes up in the middle of the night and, rather than waste time counting sheep, try to count up how much bTB has cost him over the 30 years he has been farming. Despite thaving had 1,300 head of cattle under bTB movement restrictions and 60-day rolling testing for continuous periods of up to five years he will not be one of the farmers signing up for the cull. He says:
' .. if I'm going to be a social pariah I'll have to be convinced that the cull amounts to something more than a token gesture on the part of cynical politicians who have thrown this sop to desperate English cattle farmers who wish to see "something done".
"Even if the culling reduces cattle bTB infections in cull zones more than the pathetic 16% over nine years that is predicted, the government has stated that it has no plans to roll the cull out over England's bTB-infected badger area. Instead we are offered culls in up to 40 zones, if enough farmers come forward to pay for them - a drop in the ocean of infectivity that now stretches across the whole of the South West and much of the West of England".
"Thanks, Ms Spelman, but desperate as I am to see the back of bTB, I certainly won't be signing up to this one".
This paper examines UK farmers' levels of confidence in vaccinating badgers against bovine tuberculosis (bTB) and their trust in the Government's ability to deal with bTB. In 2010, a badger vaccine based on the BCG vaccine was licensed following field trials and used as part of the UK Government's Badger Vaccination Deployment Project. A stratified random sample of cattle farmers in five different locations of England was surveyed using a telephone survey to elicit their views of badger vaccination. The survey provided a total of 341 responses with a response rate of 80 per cent. Results suggest that the farmers are cautious about badger vaccination, appearing to be neither overly confident nor unconfident in it. However, the farmers did not reveal high levels of trust in the Government to manage bTB policy or badger vaccination. There were no differences in the levels of confidence or trust between farms that were under bTB restrictions at the time of the survey and those that were not or between farms with historically high levels of bTB. Analysis of principal components suggests that 33 per cent of the farmers accepted badger vaccination, but that acceptance is dependent on the wider social and political environment.
10 Jan 2012, 6:33 PM
Interesting summary of situation in current Land mag by Ed Hamer (Winter 11/12 www.thelandmagazine.org.uk). We have been given permission to reproduce here.
The Great Bovine TB Cover Up Few people could have missed the media circus that has accompanied the coalition’s intention to license the culling of badgers in two pilot areas, in an effort to curb the spread of Bovine Tuberculosis (TB). The idea of this, our most cuddly of protected mammals, being rounded up and shot was evidently too much to bear for many commentators. Labour, the Green Party and Sir David Attenborough are among those who have come out fighting to condemn the cull. And although the campaign to “Can the Cull” has cleverly exploited the public’s appetite for defending a cute furry animal, it has spectacularly missed an opportunity to highlight the real reason that TB is crippling the UK’s beef and dairy farmers.
There is little doubt that there is currently a Bovine TB epidemic in the countryside. Following a brief lull in the mid-1980’s, incidences of Bovine TB have increased year on year with today’s levels the highest since 2001. Mr and Mrs Badger meanwhile have enjoyed a relative honeymoon period since gaining legal protection in 1992, and have increased their population accordingly.
The NFU and the coalition government, backed by the weight of several independent studies, argue that this trend demonstrates a clear link between badger populations in the UK and the spread of Bovine TB. The pro-badger camp meanwhile cite their own independent scientific papers, which argue that badgers are not in fact responsible for transmitting TB to cows, and that a cull would be inhumane and a waste of public money. Unfortunately the story isn’t quite as black and white as it seems.
Interestingly TB infection poses little health risk to today’s cows within an economic lifespan of three to five years. The reason we’re pursuing TB eradication is because we’re signed up to a European Agricultural Policy with a zero tolerance approach to TB infection. As far back as 1958, the argument was made that an unhealthy cow is an unproductive cow, and does not represent maximum efficiency for farmers, or more importantly, for the taxpayer who is subsidising them.
As a result an EU eradication policy was decided upon and compulsory TB testing of cattle was introduced to the UK in 1959. Remarkably little has changed since then. Every farm in the country is routinely tested for Bovine TB on a one to four year cycle. If a farm is found to have a TB “reactor” it is removed and killed, and the farm is re-tested every 60 days until tests show that the infection hasn’t spread throughout the herd. During this time no cattle are allowed to be moved onto, or from the farm – with added costs incurred by the farmer. In return farmers get favourable compensation for every “reactor” that is killed. The whole process is highly bureaucratic, unpopular with farmers and currently costs UK taxpayers £90 million per year.
In order to justify this level of spending DEFRA first and foremost claims to be “protecting public health and maintaining public confidence in the safety of products entering the food chain”. This despite the fact that the UK Health Protection Agency has concluded that (excepting unpasteurised milk) “the current risk posed by M. bovis (Bovine TB) to human health in the UK is considered negligible”. In fact there is so little concern that, following an autopsy, “reactor” cattle simply enter the food chain in the UK anyway.
DEFRA’s second argument is that an eradication policy “protects and promotes the health and welfare of animals”. However if this was really the objective, wouldn’t we simply vaccinate against the infection? Well, no - although a bTB vaccine is widely available, a vaccinated cow cannot be distinguished from a TB carrier once it arrives on the continent and so, incredibly, the vaccine is prohibited by EU law. Instead DEFRA’s third and final argument that we are “meeting international and domestic legal commitments and securing opportunities for international trade”, perhaps hits the nail on the head.
The UK is legally bound by both international and bilateral commitments relating to trade in agricultural goods and services. Yes, these agreements allow us to make the most of our competitive advantage for producing livestock. But they also relegate livestock and farm produce to the status of any other commodity traded in pre-determined volumes. As a direct result we’re currently spending £90 million a year protecting a live export industry which has never exceeded £3.3 million in annual revenue since the BSE export ban was lifted in 1998.
Of course, one revolutionary but effective solution could be for the UK to nullify its agricultural trade ties, vaccinate the herds and retain our beef for domestic consumption. UK farmers could enjoy not having to compete with cheaper continental imports, and instead produce slow-grown quality beef for British consumers. And while a successful farmer may never be able to compete with a fluffy badger in the eyes of the public, the badger may well end up better off when he no longer stands between a good farmer and an honest income.
www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028904 (see also www.oxfordscibar.com/new-evidence-suggesting-badger-culling-is-counter-productive.html)
'Culling-Induced Changes in Badger (Meles meles) Behaviour, Social Organisation and the Epidemiology of Bovine Tuberculosis'
In the UK, attempts since the 1970s to control the incidence of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cattle by culling a wildlife host, the European badger (Meles meles), have produced equivocal results. Culling-induced social perturbation of badger populations may lead to unexpected outcomes. We test predictions from the ‘perturbation hypothesis’, determining the impact of culling operations on badger populations, movement of surviving individuals and the influence on the epidemiology of bTB in badgers using data dervied from two study areas within the UK Government's Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Culling operations did not remove all individuals from setts, with between 34–43% of badgers removed from targeted social groups. After culling, bTB prevalence increased in badger social groups neighbouring removals, particularly amongst cubs. Seventy individual adult badgers were fitted with radio-collars, yielding 8,311 locational fixes from both sites between November 2001 and December 2003. Home range areas of animals surviving within removed groups increased by 43.5% in response to culling. Overlap between summer ranges of individuals from Neighbouring social groups in the treatment population increased by 73.3% in response to culling. The movement rate of individuals between social groups was low, but increased after culling, in Removed and Neighbouring social groups. Increased bTB prevalence in Neighbouring groups was associated with badger movements both into and out of these groups, although none of the moving individuals themselves tested positive for bTB. Significant increases in both the frequency of individual badger movements between groups and the emergence of bTB were observed in response to culling. However, no direct evidence was found to link the two phenomena. We hypothesise that the social disruption caused by culling may not only increase direct contact and thus disease transmission between surviving badgers, but may also increase social stress within the surviving population, causing immunosuppression and enhancing the expression of disease.
The conclusion reveals that 'this study clearly demonstrates how relatively simple practical measures can substantially reduce the likelihood of badger visits to buildings. Given the opportunities that visits to farm facilities may present for the transmission of M. bovis between badgers and cattle, these measures could potentially have an important role to play in reducing the incidence of TB in cattle. However, we observed wide variation in the extent to which exclusion measures were employed by farmers. In addition, the frequency of badger visits amongst farms varied independently of the presence of exclusion measures, suggesting that badgers are more attracted to some farms than to others and hence that the potential benefits of exclusion measures will also vary. Consequently, the identification of factors that might determine the likelihood of badger visits to farm premises would be a useful aid to individual farmers in making decisions about whether to spend their time and money on installing and maintaining badger exclusion measures'.
4 Jan 2012, 6:39 PM
The so-called ‘trial’ badger culls are scheduled to take place later this year in two areas yet to be agreed. Most of the costs are supposed to be paid by the farmers but how much will they really cost the taxpayer? What are the implications of such culls for farmers? Will they result in a PR disaster for the farming industry with so much public opposition? Will the costs and effort be disproportionate? Will it lead to disorder, increased public spending on additional policing? Will it be safe? So many questions and the answers will not be known until too late.
Farm minister Jim Paice has admitted DEFRA will not be able to keep the location of the culls a secret from the public. He apparently spoke to journalists at the Oxford Farming Conference today and said that the government and its badger cull licensing body, Natural England, would not announce where the culls were being held but it was impossible to prevent the public from learning where the trials to shoot badgers would be held. “In the end the public will know,” he said. “I don’t deem it possible that once this gets under way that the grapevine will not work. It may seem tough, but farmers and landowners will have to take that into consideration when they sign up to take part in the trial.”
Shadow farm minister, Mary Creagh, has expressed concern about the costs of policing a cull: “Estimated police costs have already risen tenfold to £2m in each cull area over years,” she told reporters. “There are also discrepancies between DEFRA and the industry over how much it will cost to carry out the culls.”
Mrs Creagh said her biggest concern was that the police costs indicated that armed officers would be needed to patrol the countryside to protect farmers and people licensed to carry out culls.
24 Dec 2011, 6:52 PM
We have been sent correspondence by a farmer, who, despite being in the middle of a so called bTB hot spots has never suffered a herd breakdown. We have been given permission to publish the exchange of correspondence that gives a lot of interesting information about the number of officially TB free herds. The farmers conclude that the 'never restricted' figures add significant weight to the criticism that the reporting style chosen by the government and the NFU in their efforts to justify a badger cull is proportionately negative and sensationalised.
The farmer concluded, from the correspondence he received (www.bovinetb.co.uk/admin/admin_article.php?category_id=32) that:
“If we take as an example the Farmers Weekly 'TB Key Facts' http://www.fwi.co.uk/landing-page/livestock/badger-cull/key-facts/ based on a Defra press release. They report that '10.8% of herds were restricted in 2010' but they could equally report that '89.2% of herds were not restricted in 2010. They report that ‘22.7% of cattle farms in the south-west were under cattle movement restrictions in 2010’, instead of saying 77.3% of cattle farms in the south-west were free of TB movement restrictions. And they fail to report that the 25000 cattle slaughtered in 2010 for TB control is less than 0.5% of the 7.5 million cattle tested and is a figure easily beaten by the number of fallen stock on beef and dairy farms in the normal course of events. (Defra DETAILED TB STATISTICS: 1 Jan to 31 Dec 2010 (GB) http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/stats/documents/10/2010gb.pdf)”
The farmer goes on to say say: “These 'never restricted' figures also counter the argument that the disease is 'cycling' around all of the herds but instead show that the bulk of the problem is most likely made up of the same herds 'cycling' in and out of breakdowns. A map on the NFU's 'TB Free England' site adds weight to this in its efforts to paint a gloomy picture - see http://www.tbfreeengland.co.uk/TB-Graphs-and-Maps/Map-showing-location-and-durations-of-breakdowns-Jul-2009---Jun-2010/ The 'never restricted' figures also demonstrate that far more research could and should have been undertaken along the lines of the report from the Royal Society - 'Bovine tuberculosis - reduced risk on wildlife friendly farms' http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/suppl/2008/12/08/2.2.271.DC1/rsbl20060461supp.pdf comparing farms which remain clear to those that do not”.
The farmer points out that “The high number of 'never restricted' herds also explains the ease with which the Royal Society found their control farms which had remained OTF since 1994, ie. at least ten continuous years clear at the time they were collecting data.n And it is interesting to note that, despite the time which has elapsed since the Royal Society study was undertaken, the figures show that researchers would still have no trouble finding their 'control' herds in the area studied as there are 3367 herds which have never been restricted in the Devon/Hereford/Worcester area”. If you calculate overall totals from the spreadsheet, the result is as follows:
As of 4th Sept 2011
out of a total of 78006 Officially Tuberculosis Free (OTF) herds in GB, 60811 herds have never been under TB restrictions.
If this is broken down into regions then
out of a total of 48363 OTF herds in the East/North/Scot region, 43340 herds have never been restricted
out of a total of 29643 OTF herds in the West/Wales 'hot-spot' region, 17471 have never been restricted
The spreadsheet only gives the total number of OTF herds but the total number of herds overall can be obtained from Defra stats
83636 for GB 50683 for East/North/Scot region 32953 for West/Wales 'hot-spot' region
This confirms that, based on the figures provided by the AHVLA, the percentage of herds which have never been restricted - ie. consistently OTFthroughout - is the majority of herds overall and also by region.
See www.bovinetb.co.uk/admin/admin_article.php?category_id=32 for full story and all correspondence referred to.
22 Dec 2011, 6:41 PM
Media reports are suggesting the badger cull could lead to up to a third of badgers being killed. Most of these will be healthy.
Lord Krebs asked following question in the House of Lords on 20/12/11.
'To ask Her Majesty's Government what scientific evidence they have used in developing their proposals for controlling bovine tuberculosis by culling badgers.'
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)replied: 'My Lords, evidence of the effect of badger-culling on bovine TB incidence rates comes principally from the randomised badger-culling trial. The scientific evidence from the trial suggests that proactive badger-culling, done on a sufficient geographical scale in a widespread, co-ordinated and efficient way and over a sustained period of time of at least four years, will reduce the incidence of bovine TB in cattle in high-incidence areas. It is the Government's judgment that these results can at least be replicated by a farmer-led cull using controlled shooting. The two pilots will test our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of this method.'
Lord Krebs went on to say: 'Lord Krebs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should declare an interest as the instigator of the randomised badger-culling trial some years ago. I agree with the Minister that sustained, long-term culling could reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by about 16 per cent, but can he help me with two questions which are puzzling me concerning the Secretary of State's announcement last week in another place? First, this pilot involves two areas. As a scientist, I know of no statistical technique for analysing the results from a trial involving just two areas, so perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on that point. Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to a wider rollout depending on the results of the pilot. Does that mean that the Government would consider rolling out this shooting policy to the 39,000 square kilometres of the English countryside affected by bovine TB, with the implication that one would end up shooting between a quarter and a third of the UK's badger population?'
Lord Taylor of Holbeach replied: 'I am grateful to the noble Lord for that supplementary question, and I acknowledge the authority with which he raises these questions. The purpose of the pilots is to evaluate the effectiveness of the process, rather than to provide a scientific appraisal of the cull, which is designed to last over a four-year period, and I think that the noble Lord will understand that. At the bottom of this is the fact that we are hoping to monitor the humaneness and effectiveness of a shooting policy before we roll it out, and I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is right and proper. It is suggested that the pilots should be held over a series of areas, rather than one complete area, as that would defeat the object of trying to find areas that are viable. The pilots will cover an area of at least 150 square kilometres, perhaps extending to as much as 350 square kilometres.'
19 Dec 2011, 6:53 PM
A message from Badger Friendly Farmers (email 17/12/11):
"If you have healthy badgers leave them, they are your best defence if you shoot them you'll run the very high risk of getting infected ones move in. "
18 Dec 2011, 6:23 PM
Good to see from letter in Guardian 16 December 2011 that they are calling for cattle vaccination.
'We are disappointed that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has decided not to listen to scientific evidence, the majority of the public or the advice of external stakeholders and, instead, is to go ahead with badger cull trials (Report, 15 December). These proposals are providing false hope that badger culls will eradicate the terrible problem of bovine TB. The trials will cost farmers £1.4m and cost £2m for police forces in each cull area over four years. If the government goes ahead with 10 cull areas from 2013 onwards, it could cost £20m plus in policing costs alone. We call on the government to focus its resources on improving biosecurity, limiting the transfer of TB between cattle, and producing fully functional vaccines for both badgers and cattle.'
Joe Duckworth Chief executive, League Against Cruel Sports Mark Jones Executive director, Humane Society International/UK Anne Brummer Founder and trustee, Harper Asprey Wildlife Rescue Andrew Tyler Director, Animal Aid Lorraine Platt Co-founder, Conservatives Against Fox Hunting Libby Anderson Acting chief executive, One Kind Simon Cowell Founder/director, The Wildlife Aid Foundation Robbie Marsland UK director, International Fund for Animal Welfare Wally Burley, Chair, Labour Animal Welfare Society Peter Bottomley MP Conservative, Worthing West Martin Horwood MP Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham Dr Caroline Lucas MP Green, Brighton Pavilion Kerry McCarthy MP Labour, Bristol East Bob Russell MP Liberal Democrat, Colchester Adrian Sanders MP Liberal Democrat, Torbay Mike Weatherley MP Conservative, Hove and Portslade Chris Williamson MP Labour, Derby North
18 Dec 2011, 6:08 PM
For the last few months, an independent review panel commissioned by the Welsh Government has been undertaking an assessment of all the evidence that underpins the badger-bTB debate. On the 7th December, John Griffiths AM (Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development) issued a written statement to the effect that he had met with Professor John Harries, Chief Scientific Adviser for Wales, and Professor Chris Gaskell, Principal of the Royal Agricultural College and Chair of the independent review panel. At this meeting, he formally received the report on the science base for the bovine TB eradication programme. The Welsh Government have stated that they are now considering the report and its implications, and we expect that they will report further on this early in the new year.
Meanwhile in England and at a UK level various other moves have been made by the Government and its agencies. WTSWW, along with many other stakeholders, have been contacted by FERA (Food and Environment Research Agency) about a badger survey of England and Wales, commissioned by Defra. It is to be the third in a series of such monitoring schemes dating back to 1985 and aims to assess changes in population size and distribution over time.
Meanwhile in England this week, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman has announced two badger culls in pilot areas using the ‘free-shooting’ technique, where badgers are shot by marksmen, without trapping. She said, “there is great strength of feeling on this issue and no one wants to see badgers culled. But at present there is no satisfactory alternative.” Last year the government cancelled five out of six pilots for the vaccination of badgers, on cost grounds. Vaccination is currently being trialled by the National Trust and the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust. Under the proposed free-shooting trials, the farmers themselves will incur the costs of the culling and will be required to seek licences from Natural England and use marksmen with special shooting permits. Rosie Woodroffe, one of the researchers involved in the Independent Scientific Group’s Randomised Badger Culling Trial (which found that culling badgers could not make a meaningful contribution to the control of TB in cattle), said that “It is likely to cost farmers more than they save, and there is a serious concern that such culling will make cattle TB worse rather than better”.
The Government is already facing opposition to Caroline Spelman’s announcement. Paul Wilkinson, Head of Living Landscape for The Wildlife Trusts, said “a badger cull is the wrong tool to address this serious and complex problem and a distraction from other measures to tackle bovine TB.
An industry-led cull with open shooting in the countryside is untested and these pilots will not provide a scientific evaluation of the impact on bovine TB. The rationale for any cull of native species needs to be extremely clear and well proven. We do not believe this is the case with the proposed badger cull.” The Badger Trust has said that it is ‘very disappointed’ with the decision and that they are studying the decision with their legal advisors to determine what actions they should take. Meanwhile the Humane Society International/UK (HSI/UK) is already submitting a complaint to the Bern Convention against the UK in response to the announcement. HSI/UK believes proceeding with a badger slaughter breaches the international convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats because it lacks ‘legitimate purpose’ and poses a significant threat to local badger populations. In addition, HSI/UK does “not believe that alternative strategies for controlling tuberculosis in cattle (bTB) and badgers have been sufficiently explored”.
The above information is taken from the newsletter of the Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales, The Wildlife Trusts will continue to work together to support vaccination as an alternative to culling.
16 Dec 2011, 4:11 PM
So Spelman has allowed the two trial culls to proceed. "NFU estimates it will cost groups of farmers between £75,000 and £95,000 per 150sq.km area." What will it really cost the taxpayer too? Will it involve expensive policing? And all to reduce disease by just a few percent - and this is not even proven?
Expensive for farmers, an unknown outcome, bad PR and yet again badgers polarize the debate and take resources and attention AWAY from finding a permanent solution! In view of the cost, detailed requirements for culling and overwhelming public opposition (consistently ignored by the government), how many farmers are going to be signed up for the first two?
13 Dec 2011, 6:59 PM
I see Defra is about to spend (waste?) nearly 1 million pounds on attempting to get information on numbers of badgers in GB. Apparently it will inform their policy on badgers?The last National Badger Survey of Great Britain was completed in 1997 so why do we need another guess in these times of financial cut backs in so many other areas. And when will focus go back to cattle and away from badgers?
7 Dec 2011, 6:23 PM
First Minister Carwyn Jones says a decision on plans for a badger cull in parts of west Wales will be made early next year (2012).
The cull was put on hold in June when ministers appointed an independent panel to review scientific evidence.
Let's hope they, instead of more culling, push for cattle vaccination.
15 Nov 2011, 6:55 PM
According to recent media reports, James Paice, Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has said that the cost to groups of farmers applying for a licence to cull badgers will total a massive £1.4million!
Mr Paice said DEFRA had calculated the costs to farmers and landowners within each 350sq km cull zone.
Answering a question in the House of Commons last week (7 November), Mr Paice said the costs covered all aspects of carrying out a cull to tackle bovine TB, including co-ordinating and surveying.
Mr Paice said DEFRA was also in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office over the police response and associated costs related to the proposed cull.
Shadow environment minister Mary Creagh said DEFRA's estimated costings for carrying out a cull proved the badger cull plans were bad for farmers and taxpayers.
"It is huge amount for people to find when they are being squeezed by rising fuel, feed and fertiliser prices," she said.
We agree! Culling badgers is not proven to be cost effective, is disproportionate, publicly unpopular .... we need cattle vaccination!
15 Nov 2011, 6:10 PM
We were delighted to receive a joint NFU and Badger Trust press release today. To see the two groups working together at last must surely mean there is light at the end of a very dark tunnel. One comment: if badgers can be vaccinated against bTB, why can't cattle?
The NFU and the Badger Trust have agreed to work together on an initial project to vaccinate badgers on two farms owned by members of the NFU.
NFU chief farm policy adviser John Royle and Badger Trust Director Simon Boulter have agreed a joint project in which the badgers on two farms owned by NFU members will be vaccinated. In addition, the Badger Trust has identified five other landowners around the UK wishing to vaccinate badgers and is working independently with them as part of the initial trial project.
Vaccination on all seven farms started in October after surveys were carried out to identify active badger setts and licences have been granted by Natural England. The vaccination project will run until the end of November 2011 and resume in May 2012.
It is hoped that the two programmes, although small in scale, will help to identify whether the injectable vaccination of badgers is practical and cost effective. The NFU and the Badger Trust will continue to encourage research and development into an orally-delivered badger vaccine.
Speaking for the NFU, chief farm policy adviser, John Royle said: “We are pleased that the NFU and the Badger Trust have successfully liaised to facilitate this joint project, sharing equipment and resources as necessary, despite having differing views on the degree to which badgers are implicated in the transmission of bovine Tuberculosis.”
Simon Boulter, speaking for the Badger Trust, said: “We hope that with the use of volunteers to help with the work of surveying, trap-setting and pre-baiting, we can successfully implement an effective badger vaccination programme.”
During the summer of 2011, the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) ran four courses to enable people to be trained as lay vaccinators, qualified to inject badgers with the BCG vaccine. Two members of the NFU and five members of groups affiliated to the Badger Trust attended and passed enabling them to obtain the necessary certificate of competence.
'The health of the soil, allied with proper stock management are keys to beating bovine tuberculosis, Waihopai valley farmer Aiden MacKenzie says in a discussion paper presented to a meeting of Marlborough Federated Farmers.'
"In a nutshell, if the soil is balanced in terms of mineral elements and healthy, then grass nutrition is balanced and healthy and healthy stock result," he says.
"The consequence is maximum immunity to diseases whether it be TB or others."
In soil balance, key elements such as magnesium, potassium, calcium and sodium are vital. If grass is well balanced, then the animal gets a well-balanced diet. Hence its immune system is fully functional and repels disease.
Historical studies of Tb that go back to the Iron Age or before, have shown the disease had always hit populations "nutritionally impoverished". Scientific studies have shown apart from reduced soil fertility, acidic soils are directly related to increased "myco-bacteria" problems, such as bovine Tb.
"In summary, acidic soils create a cascade effect of an accumulation of available iron. High iron levels allow myco-bacteria to thrive and increase and create the pathology within an animal's body for strains such as tuberculosis. Myco-bacteria `hijack' the iron from the animal's body, which leads to classic anaemia, associated with chronic Tb." In addition, the "theft" of iron disables the immune system with a resultant increase in Tb.
Tb bacteria is almost always present, but needs lower animal condition with a low immune system, to take hold. "If animals are healthy because of a balanced environment in soil and pasture, then the efficient immune system stops Tb taking hold." Tests in Michigan, US, had shown conclusively, liming the soils caused a 10-fold reduction in Tb.
On his Waihopai Downs station property, Mr MacKenzie said by concentrating on balanced soil, thus balanced feed and therefore a healthy balanced animal with an efficient immune system, not only diseases but parasites became non-existent. "We rarely have to drench animals for parasites, depending on random but regular dung samples to measure any parasites."
Mr MacKenzie said his views were not new and back in the 1930s, studies showed cattle raised on balanced soils and boxed in with foot and mouth disease infected cattle, did not contract the disease. Other research proved the same in the 1950s with Tb and brucellosis. "What I am telling you is not new science – it has been proven over 80 years, over and over again. It can be seen in humans with disease. A lack of proper balanced diet and overcrowding creates an optimum environment for disease.," he said.
Mr MacKenzie criticised the Tb policy of the Animal Health Board in scattering toxins like 1080 indiscriminately over large areas and ignoring the solution of soil and stock management.
"Yet under pressure from chemical companies and vested interests, New Zealand during 1960 to 1970, embarked on aerial top dressing with principally super phosphate, thus creating a soil imbalance. It was not a coincidence that TB increased greatly in those decades." New Zealand's TB rates were currently very low at 0.3% compared to UK countries with 5 to 9 % incidence.
The strategy dependent on 1080 poison drops was not addressing the major cause of TB, he claims. The meeting decided to forward the discussion paper to Marlborough's TB-free committee.
4 Nov 2011, 7:24 PM
Press Realease from Badger Trust dated 4/11/11
Caroline Spelman lets badger consultation cat out of the bag
Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman told a Commons Select Committee (1) that the “difficult Government decision . . . of how to eradicate bovine TB was taken through a very detailed process engaging all the stakeholders as much as possible in making that decision in order to minimise the potential for public adverse reaction”. But there was a further purpose, revealed when she said: of the “different parties” involved “; they are likely to go out and engage with the pubic themselves and help to explain why it is such a difficult decision”.
The Badger Trust has been one of those parties and regards the decision not as difficult but as perversely pandering to the pressure of a stubborn and ill-informed cattle industry.
David Williams, Chairman of the Badger Trust, said: “The Badger Trust is a stakeholder and has responded to consultations in good faith to inform the decision-making process, but not to have its “potential for adverse reaction” minimised nor to act as a messenger for government”.
Ms Spelman also said “the reaction to that [badger culling] decision was significantly less than other decisions we have made in relation to forests." Mr Williams commented that the comparison was entirely false: ”Decisions about the control of bovine tuberculosis involve sophisticated science whereas the Coalition Government’s sell-off policy on forests was based on creating commercial opportunities and saving public expenditure.
“Unfortunately the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties foolishly committed themselves to killing badgers without thinking through the complexities and dangerous consequences. Such recklessness may be fine in opposition, but now they are reaping a poisonous harvest and are having to save face by cynically manipulating the public and pushing the costs on to the farmers involved.
“The Coalition should forget badgers, rigorously enforce and supervise better cattle controls and deal with farmers who break the rules”.
More concern re poison being used to kill possums in New Zealand as part of bTB policy. Apparently the research used to support the 1080 poison use in New Zealand does not stand up to basic scrutiny, and suggests bird species that are most likely to show harm, are overlooked for researching.
The study piece clearly demonstrates that the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand is not only harming our wildlife, but also accelerating extinctions for some species.
The truth about aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food 02/11/2011
By Dr Alexis Pietak (Dr Alexis Pietak is a biomedical research scientist, biophysicist, and author who lived in New Zealand from February 2005- May 2011. More information about Dr Pietak can be found at: www.omecha..org)
Aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food is a hotly contested issue. Anti-1080 proponents claim that the widespread, uncontrolled distribution of highly lethal food into wilderness ecosystems has the capacity to decimate certain bird populations and wreak ecological havoc. Advocates claim that 1080-poisoned food is selective for mammals, and even if bird deaths do occur, the benefits of mammalian predator removal apparently outweigh the risk of bird deaths. According to advocates, aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food is the only way to protect New Zealand’s last stands of flora and fauna, and must be used to control bovine tuberculosis in New Zealand’s cattle and deer herds. Who is right? What is the truth about aerial-dropped 1080-poisoned food?
For the full article see www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1111/S00133/new-research-calls-for-moratorium-on-1080-poison-use.htm