Pauline Kidner and Liz Mullineaux: Cull helps neither farmers nor badgers
Wildlife rescue and welfare campaigner Pauline Kidner and vet Liz Mullineaux take issue with Farming Minister David Heath’s view that a badger cull is vital to control bovine TB...
Farming Minister David Heath’s article in the Western Daily Press on Friday described the dreadful ongoing problem faced by farmers in the South West – tuberculosis in cattle.
-
It is extremely difficult to test for, protect against, and treat TB. No simple single method is the answer and any such suggestion is of no benefit to farmers struggling with the disease in their cattle
Unfortunately, like many politicians before him, he has taken the easy option of believing that culling badgers can solve this very difficult and complex situation. This view does farmers no favours and detracts from the real issue of the Government needing to spend time and money investing in useful tools to control this disease.
It is correct to say that other countries that have had TB have culled their wildlife but in none of those countries have badgers been the species infected by cattle. Badgers are very different to feral water buffalo (in Australia) or introduced possum (in New Zealand). In his defence of culling Mr Heath states that “evidence has shown that culling, when carried out properly, can play a significant role in helping reduce the spread of bovine TB”.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
This is simply not true. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that culling badgers will have no positive impact on the disease in cattle and in many cases will actually make it worse. This is not just our view, but that of many eminent scientists and veterinary surgeons who the Government choose to ignore.
The Randomised Badger Culling Trial was the largest experiment on bovine TB ever undertaken in the world and cost the UK taxpayer over £53million. Over 11,000 badgers were killed, 85 per cent of which showed no signs of the disease even though they were in areas of high incidence of bovine TB in cattle.
The findings of the RBCT, published in international journals, concluded that “culling could make no meaningful contribution to the control of TB in cattle in Britain”. The reason for this is that when badger populations are disturbed and distressed, animals move away from their strict territorial areas and this spreads disease, the well-described perturbation effect.
In the RBCT, teams of professionally trained staff killed badgers by cage trapping and then shooting them. As this method of culling is too costly, the Government has suggested several variations from the RBCT in its pilot culls. These include a longer culling period and shooting of free-running badgers. These changes will increase the perturbation effect, make the spread of bovine TB worse and reduce any benefits of culling.
Apart from all the scientific reasons for culling being wrong, there are also concerns for the welfare of the badgers. Shooting of free-running badgers has never been carried out before and is likely to be extremely difficult for the marksmen involved, resulting in injured live badgers. From our own records over 20 years, we know that dependant badger cubs will die underground at either end of the proposed culling season. We are not at all reassured by the measures that have been put in place by Defra to monitor badger welfare and believe badgers will suffer once again in this new government experiment.
We agree that there has been an increase in the number of infected cattle and we do not underestimate the problem that is faced. It should be pointed out, however, that 30,000 more cattle have been tested this year compared with the previous year due to annual testing being introduced in new areas.
This increased figure purely illustrates how many infected cattle had been being missed by the previously inadequate testing regimes. It is of course extremely difficult to test for, protect against, and indeed treat TB. No simple single method is the answer and any such suggestion is of no benefit to farmers struggling with the disease in their cattle. Politicians like simple answers and find it hard to accept that solutions are complex and expensive. There are, however, measures other than culling at our disposal.
The movement of infected cattle around the country must continue to be controlled, through rigorous testing using all the available methods. Recently published evidence also illustrates that simple bio-security measures such as electric fencing are extremely effective in preventing badger-cattle contact around farmyards.
There is a licensed badger BCG vaccine and it should be used throughout the South West, not just in isolated areas. The vaccine is effective in reducing disease in badgers and everything suggests that it will have a positive impact upon the disease in cattle. The current vaccination method by injection is not ideal. However, research into an oral vaccine is progressing well and requires government support.
Mr Heath is incorrect in stating that every badger needs to be trapped every year. The use of annual vaccination is purely to catch cubs and any unvaccinated adults missed the previous year. The cattle BCG vaccine already exists and is used in other countries such as Ethiopia. We also already have a differential test to distinguish between vaccinated and infected animals. Licensing of a cattle vaccine will take time, but if there is genuine political will and funding to make this happen it will not take ten years.
Culling of badgers is not the answer to the tuberculosis problem in cattle. Until the Government accept this and move forward with real solutions, this dreadful problem for farmers and animals alike will not be solved.
Pauline Kidner is founder of Secret World Wildlife. Liz Mullineaux is a consultant veterinarian.
8 Comments
by stormkettle
Sunday, March 24 2013, 10:23PM
“Badgers (as in humans)
Once vaccinated, remain vaccinated .
Good article Pauline Kidner.
Wiping out huge swathes of badger families is a very sad method of trying to reduce bovine Tb in cattle.”
by newactivist
Saturday, March 23 2013, 10:31AM
“'The hidden agenda' surfaced some time ago when a 'top Government Minister said 'we accept the science but we have to give the farmers a carrot.'
Unfortunately the farmers are now being led by their noses by the NFU. The will live to regret it. They had the support of consumers in their fight with the Supermarkets over milk prices but that support has gone now.”
by ssimples
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 5:17PM
“In my first comment at one point I said the following
"it is highly unlikely that the cattle vaccine will ever get implemented in the UK in its current form before a major technical breakthrough occurs. The EFRA Committee minutes taken for recent sessions with vets and AHVLA staff makes this very clear."
I am not at all comfortable with the second sentence regarding what the minutes makes clear. In fact having now rescaned the minutes of the session in which Prof Hewinson and Simon Hall sat, I do not think that this applies.”
by Alan19531953
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 4:40PM
“First note that my name is not 'anonymous'. I am happy to stand up and be counted no problem. I am against the badger 'wipe out' and it's easy to explain why:
If any producer (which includes farmers obviously) states: in order to produce product A then I need to wipe out indigenous species x then I would immediately say 'no thank you sir'.
If on the other hand a producer says ' the production of my product A has inadvertently caused a serious infection in indigenous species x and I need to find a way firstly to put this right, and then seek to modify my production methods so that product A has minimal impact on species x and vice versa then' I am all ears'. This is acting in a responsible way and saving our environment for future generations to enjoy. It's not about being a 'badger hugger' or any other derogatory term farmers like to employ for anyone who doesn't agree with them. All producers, and this includes farmers, must seek ways to live in harmony with our fellow species on this planet.
A graph recently released shows that the Irish have reduced TB by about half. It also shows that they have not eliminated TB. Far from it. Equally it doesn't show that they have shot some 45,000 badgers i.e. near nigh wiped them out in many areas to achieve this. The Irish public are just starting to wake up to what has happened. It's taken them some time but the outrage will now just grow and grow. Who can be surpised?? TB reduced but at a dreadful environmental cost??
Regards
Alan Myers”
by poppyfield
Monday, March 18 2013, 6:04PM
“I have come to the conclusion that the government's hidden agenda is to remove badgers from greenfield sites in order to be able to build on them.”
by ssimples
Monday, March 18 2013, 2:34PM
“In my last comment where it reads
"BCG vaccine sensitizing cattle to the skin test"
this should read
"BCG vaccine desensitizing cattle to the skin test".”
by Clued-Up
Monday, March 18 2013, 2:05PM
“A very good article, with a clear explanation of the untruths presented by the minister.
We've never got to the bottom of why Heath and Paterson are so committed to killing badgers, in the face of all the evidence scientists have produced saying the badger cull will do damn all to limit cattle bTB (and may increase it). It's certainly a personal hobby-horse in Heath's case - he was an enthusiast long before he became a minister.
This duo have had ample time to reflect on how a badger slaughter will outrage the public, already angry with the government over its economic mismanagement, the "bedroom tax", the damage to the NHS and so on. They know tax-payers don't want their money spent on this loathsome, pointless killing spree, especially at a time when government says it's too broke to fund the services tax-payers care about (eg the police services, education, the NHS and so on).
I ask again WHY is Heath so committed to killing badgers when he must know it won't serve any useful purpose? What is his hidden agenda?”
by ssimples
Monday, March 18 2013, 1:43PM
“I absolutely agree that the cattle vaccine will take time and that it will not take ten years.
In view of the complications introduced by the BCG vaccine sensitizing cattle to the skin test, the need to do extensive field trials, and big unknowns as to what farmers involved in this trial will do with their milk and meat (see recorded minutes of the EFRA Committee with Professor Glyn Hewinson and Simon Hall on 6 March 2013.), it is highly unlikely that the BCG will ever complete the necessary processes and approvals involved.
The upshot of this is that it is highly unlikely that the cattle vaccine will ever get implemented in the UK in its current form before a major technical breakthrough occurs. The EFRA Committee minutes taken for recent sessions with vets and AHVLA staff makes this very clear.
Regarding controlling the movement of infected cattle around the country, rigorous testing using all the available methods and bio-security measures, all these measures are vital to preventing levels of TB from soaring. However, how will concentrating and tightening up these measures get us out of the current mess when faced with the following evidence?
In the journal Epidemiol. Infect. (1995), 114, 179-193 179 work was carried out by staff at the Central Veterinary Laboratory in Surrey. Data was provided and verified by MAFF in the south-west region. The cull area covered 104km2 in Gloucestershire and Avon and the data extends from 1966 to 1992. It follows that the data is likely to be reliable. The 26-year time frame of the data allows an analysis to be carried out where the confidence intervals are sufficiently small so as to make the results meaningful.
On comparing total herd incidence in the Thornbury area with incidence in the whole of the South West, TB levels dropped to a quarter of those recorded in the whole of the South West when reference is made to TB levels just before culling started. When herd incidence of confirmed cases only are looked at, no confirmed cases occurred for 10 years after culling stopped in 1981.
Thornbury was chosen partly because it was an area known for persistent TB. Levels in this area were very high in this area compared to the rest of the country and had remained so since Great Britain gained attested status for cattle testing in 1960.
Faced with these results how can continuing with the current approaches lead to the reduction in this disease which, as referred to in the above EFRA Committee meeting with Prof Hewinson, is dependent on the plateau set by badger-to-cattle transmission?
How high is this plateau in view of the results obtained at Thornbury?
In view of how the disease has spread across the country in the last 10 years, there is a dire need to properly tackle the badger-to-cattle transmission element now. The injectable vaccine for badgers is totally impractical to administer over large areas and the difficulties associated with and stage reached with trialing the oral vaccine means that failing to implement a culling policy now is likely to lead to a huge problem in 10 years time.”