Badgers and TB
Historically tuberculosis (TB) is a much feared respiratory disease. Cattle can be infected by a bacterium called mycobacterium bovis (m.bovis). This is the same bacterium that can infect humans and badgers. Humans drinking untreated milk which had come from cattle with lesions on their udders led to them contracting TB. However most milk now is pasteurised and the chance of a member of the public catching TB is 1 in 2 million.
In 1935 at least 40% of cows in dairy herds had TB.
By 1960 a testing programme had reduced it to one herd in 50, but TB has never been completely eradicated, being a persistent problem particularly in South-West England.
In 1971 a dead badger on a Gloucestershire farm was found to have died of advanced TB. On looking into this further the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) decided TB was so well established in badgers that steps should be taken against badgers where they were seen to be a threat to cattle, i.e., the badgers should be killed. The 1973 Badgers Act allowed licences to be issued for just that purpose. It may seem incredible now but the preferred method of killing badgers then was by gassing, a process some farmers still advocate.
Over the years various reports have been commissioned to study the issues and come up with recommendations regarding the problem of TB, cattle and badgers.
In 1980 Lord Zuckerman concluded in his report that badgers did constitute a significant reservoir of bovine TB and that MAFF should carry on killing badgers, but not by gassing them. He also recommended a policy review in the future which led to the Dunnet Report in 1986. This report, while it implicated badgers in the TB outbreaks in the South-West of England did say it was not desirable to kill large numbers of healthy badgers in the process of trying to control TB. It is only after killing a badger and conducting a post mortem that it can be ascertained if it had TB. The report also recommended a test be developed that would detect TB in living badgers. By this time millions of pounds of taxpayers' money had been spent in MAFF's TB eradication policy, and thousands of badgers had been killed, most of them being free of TB. After the Dunnet Report it was accepted that complete eradication of TB was not a feasible aim.
Moving forward to 1996 a review was commissioned by the Government to investigate the link between TB and cattle and badgers. This review was chaired by Professor, now Lord, Krebs. A year later the Krebs Report concluded that "the sum of evidence strongly supports the view that in Britain badgers are a significant source of (TB) infection in cattle, although evidence is all indirect". The report suggested as there was a lack of scientific data that a Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) be set up to see what effect killing badgers had on TB in cattle. The method of doing this was via the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) chaired by Professor Bourne, who set up a scheme intended to run for five years from December 1998. The idea was to select ten areas where TB in cattle had been relatively high in recent times. Within each area chosen there were to be three different strategies, one for each of three so-called "triplets". "Pro-active" culling involved killing all the badgers in one triplet and then keeping that triplet clear of badgers for the rest of the trial. A second triplet would have "re-active" culling, i.e. killing all badgers associated with farms where TB had been confirmed. The third triplet was to have no badger killing at all. The point of this exercise was to monitor the levels of TB in cattle in the study areas to measure the effects of the three different strategies.
By November 2003 the then Animal Health and Welfare Minister, Ben Bradshaw, accepted the advice of the ISG and had to announce the suspension of "re-active" culling. The ISG had concluded that re-active culling could not be justified on scientific grounds. The culling actually increased TB infection in cattle in the surrounding areas by destabilising the badger population, thus weakening the group's immunity and making them less resistant to disease. What is known as the "perturbation effect", where unsettled neighbouring badgers moved into vacant territory. These exposed the badgers and cattle to further infection. So the negative effects of killing badgers exceeded the limited benefits. The conclusion drawn was that it was better to concentrate on cattle controls. The National Federation of Badger Groups (now known as Badger Trust) stated that the link between bovine TB in badgers and cattle could not be broken by killing badgers.
In December 2005 the government announced new measures to tackle TB in cattle and this included a twelve week consultation on badger culling. The outcome was remarkable. There were 47,000 responses via letter and e-mail, thirteen petitions against a cull containing 12,100 signatures and there were 10,000 text messages. Of those numbers 4% of the total supported a cull, 0.4% were neutral, and 95.6% (45,415) were against a cull. Authoritative organisations such as The Mammal Society, Woodland Trust, The Royal Society, RSPCA, and Wildlife Trusts expressed their grave reservations about culling.
On 7th July 2008 Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for the Environment, announced that a wholesale cull of badgers was not going to be part of the government's new package of measures to try to control TB in cattle. He announced the setting up of a Bovine TB Partnership Group which is intended to focus on other measures to control the disease, and vaccination is high on the list. This announcement rather leaves Elin Jones, Rural Affairs Minister in Wales out on a limb. In 2008 she issued a statement to the National Assembly for Wales about her plans for a TB eradication programme. What she said was widely interpreted as authorising a badger cull. Badger Trust made the opening moves to have this decision judicially reviewed and the Welsh Assembly Legal Services Department had the task of trying to explain what the Minister had really meant by her announcement as opposed to what just about everyone had interpreted her to mean. Apparently she had not made a decision to kill badgers in Wales after all. However, her statement and that of Mr Benn do make for interesting comparison.
The above paragraphs give a flavour of just how complex and contentious the issue of badgers, cattle and TB is. Tens of thousands of badgers have been killed over the last 30 years, many of them inhumanely, in pursuit of data and solutions to the problem of controlling TB. However, TB in cattle has not decreased in this time, it has increased.
Do badgers give TB to cattle? Cattle give TB to cattle and there is a strong case for saying - cattle give TB to badgers. When badgers and Cattle in the same area have TB, it is not proof that the badgers infected the cattle. Very few badgers in fact have TB. Of those that have, fewer still are infectious. Infectious badgers or cattle pass the bacteria out through their urine, faeces, or even their breath. These bacteria can then be picked up by other animals. The scope for passing on the infection in pasture shared by badgers and cattle is clear, but as is pointed out above, tens of thousands of badgers killed in the last 30 years or so has to be looked at against the statistic that TB in cattle in the same period has increased.
At last we seem to have reached the stage where the decision-makers can see that all the killing has proved is that killing badgers is not the solution. Other issues that have to be addressed include the quality of animal husbandry practised by some farmers. If this is of a poor standard it can allow badgers into farm buildings, water troughs, cattle feed areas and so on.
The unreliability of the TB test in cattle is another factor to be addressed.
The dreadful outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease produced some interesting side effects. TB testing was suspended during the epidemic. Many cattle were kept indoors together, so that infectious cattle could infect others. Later, when TB testing resumed, more cattle were found to have TB. Farmers re-stocking after losing cattle through Foot and Mouth bought untested cattle some of whom were carrying TB. This helped to spread the disease to previously TB free areas. Throughout that period badgers were not moving around Britain, so it is difficult to see how those new outbreaks of TB could be blamed on them.
No-one can ignore the effect on farmers of losing cattle to TB or suspected TB (cattle found to be infected with TB must be slaughtered and movement restrictions are put in place), and looking for a scapegoat is a natural reaction. However, it is illogical and against sound science to simply blame badgers. All the scientific advice, with the exception of one hurriedly compiled and universally condemned report (the author of which has been described by Lord Krebs as "isolated"), is that culling badgers makes no meaningful contribution to controlling TB in cattle. The advice is that more stringent TB testing will help to control the disease. Statistically, moving cattle on to a farm is the biggest risk factor for a herd acquiring TB. That is not a badger-related risk. Mr Benn has flagged up the need for farmers to take responsibility for the burden of TB control. Defra advised that farmers should try to prevent contact between cattle on neighbouring farms, and that the cattle coming on to farms are healthy. They also urge that strict biosecurity measures are implemented, that cattle are bought from tested herds which are shown to be disease free and that farmers seek veterinary advice to address the health and welfare needs of their herds. The government stress it is not just their problem, but look for contributions from farmers, vets, and wildlife groups. Cattle movements substantially and consistently outweigh all other factors in predicting TB outbreaks.
If you have got this far then you are clearly interested in getting to grips with understanding what is a complex problem for the farming industry and, as a result, for the future safety and welfare of badgers. There is a wealth of detailed information available on websites. One such is Badger Trust at. www.badgertrust.org.uk where amongst other things you can read detailed comment on the anti-badger announcements of the Farmers Union, the NFU. Another site with detailed information and access to reports is the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) site at www.defra.gov.uk where you need to look for the Animal health and welfare pages.
Ed: At the time of writing, Christmas 2010, the campaign against culling continues. Luckily the Welsh assembly’s attempt to start culling was forced out on a technicality but it is hell bent on returning to that policy. It would seem that the politicians thought there were more votes in favouring a cull in England but luckily, in the aftermath of the elections, the Coalition has played for time by promoting yet more consultation. How can they still ignore the Science? I think they have already made up their minds but we await the results. I hope you took part and let the government know your views in no uncertain terms. Unfortunately our Newsletter with an article asking for your support, was held up by the snow. We keep our fingers crossed. For the latest position go to www.badgertrust.org.uk