The existing policy is based entirely on an unreliable skin test and even Defra admits this. The skin test is actually designed as a herd test and this is how it is used in countries where rates of bovine TB are very low (bTB free). It means that if a reactor is found the whole herd is depopulated. The UK does not do this. The Rethink bTB discussion paper (www.rethinkbtb.org/a_better-way.html) discusses this and uses Defra's own figures to demonstrate just how unreliable the skin test is. For example cattle with Johne's disease (another disease caused by Mycobacteria react and apparently in around 50% of UK herds) react positively to the test. Other cattle, particularly those in the later stage of bTB, do not react to the test and are missed.

A DIVA test has been developed for cattle that can be used with the BCG vaccine. Surely we should be insisting that the EU amends the relevant directives and regulations to enable the development and use of these? 'The vaccine will not give 100% protection (estimates range from 50 -70%) and is not perfect – but then neither is the existing skin (or blood) test (estimates range from 70%). Vaccination does not give absolute immunity but it significantly increases natural resistance to the disease. Bearing in mind the average lifespan of cattle, it could therefore be used as the basis for a successful control, rather than eradication, policy. It will be easier for farmers and cheaper in the long term too as cattle would no longer have to be slaughtered needlessly (with subsequent compensation costs) just because they are reactors or unconfirmed reactors to an unreliable skin or blood test.

Bovine TB is not considered to be a health risk these days. Despite it being endemic in some areas it is estimated at well under 1% of human tuberculosis cases (The Health Protection Agency's report on tuberculosis surveillance in the UK 2010; 'Tuberculosis in the UK' he Health Protection Agency's report on tuberculosis surveillance in the UK 2010; 'Tuberculosis in the UK' - bovine TB accounted for JUST .5% of the total TB cases.). Milk is still regarded as the principle vehicle for transmission to humans, so there is therefore negligible risk if milk is boiled or pasteurised. The Health Protection Agency confirms that current risk posed by M. bovis to human health in the UK is considered 'negligible' (www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Page/1204619502284?p=1204619502284
Health Protection Agency, section on Mycobacterium bovis.).

On the subject of human health and bovine TB, there is a very interesting paper by two well qualified professors (if you whisper me your email address I will send you a copy) that confirms it is not a public health risk. They confirm that 'Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in UK cattle is increasing rapidly. Consequently, the UK Government is spending escalating sums of money in attempts at disease control. We propose that bTB control in cattle is irrelevant as a public health policy. In the UK, cattle-to-human transmission is negligible. Aerosol transmission, the only probable route of human acquisition, occurs at inconsequential levels when milk is pasteurised, even when bTB is highly endemic in cattle. Furthermore, there is little evidence for a positive cost benefit in terms of animal health of bTB control. Such evidence is required; otherwise, there is little justification for the large sums of public money spent on bTB control in the UK.' The paper is called ‘Public Health and bovine tuberculosis – what’s all the fuss about’ and it is by Paul R Torgerson and David J Torgenson. These days virtually all milk is pasteurised (in Scotland this is compulsory).

You state the figure of 25,000 cattle being slaughtered because of bTB. This is the 2010 figure, but it should be put into context with the total number of cattle slaughtered prematurely for other reasons. This is has been estimated as at least ten times as many as for bTB, (300,000 from mastitis, lameness, and infertility among the many other reasons for premature slaughter [www.kiteconsulting.com/_Attachments/resources/140_s4.pdf]. Of course the taxpayer does not compensate for these 'other reason's.

See http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article.php?article_id=106 for an article on the parallels of the human and cattle form of TB. MYCOBACTERIUM TUBERCULOSIS (HUMAN FORM OF TB) AND BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (THE CATTLE FORM OF TB. The disease, in most animals / humans infected, remains latent and does not usually cause full blown symptoms unless the immune system is compromised. We do not cull humans that react to the similar skin test we use on cattle! Most continue to live among us without causing any problems. Cattle very rarely show clinical signs as they generally have such short lives.

It would seem that killing badgers is disproportionate; the few studies done have revealed it is not cost effective, it is publicly unpopular and, in reality, no-one knows if it will work. We should remember that badgers have been culled in some areas since the 1970's (I seem to recall around 50,000 to date?) and the level of TB has not increased! Phil Hoskins, a farmer in a hot spot areas and President of the Small Farms Association, summed it up well recently: 'I’ve seen some daft agricultural policies in my life, but I have to remind myself what this is all for – a 16 per cent 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?'.

Rethink Bovine TB and the discussion paper at www.rethinkbtb.org is worth looking at, as is www.bovinetb.co.uk Both these sites concentrate on the wider issues involved and are not polarised by the badger debate.

Some other interesting blogs, discussion forum are listed below.

http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article.php?article_id=100 - Bovine TB - a cattle farmer's perspective


www.fwi.co.uk/community/forums/p/60717/191364.aspx#191364 - this is a forum for farmers. The posts by a farmer (Eyes Wide Open) in the midst of a TB hotspot whose herd has never tested positive for bTB and has obviously done a lot of research into the subject are worth reading.

https://twitter.com/#!/badger_friendly - Badger Friendly Farmers

www.blogger.com/profile/14780561887046892901

http://www.talking-naturally.co.uk/badger-cull-be-trouble-ahead-stating-blinking-obvious/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Links are great, confirms what I thought, follow the money:

Quote: "If money is your thing then it's worth noting that we are spending £100 million each year trying to protect an export market (live cattle) worth about £3.3 million."

Dual purpose breeds that are sacrificed after three or four years of productive life, usually on zero grazing and highly susceptible to disease. That's what needs changing. And it starts by establishing higher milk prices but that's a topic for other forums.

Pleased to have a cleared thread.

Hmm. Looks I missed some controversy. What happened?

I don't understand why culling is prefered over vaccination - it seems daft unless infection levels are_really_ low, which presumably they aren't?

Is the point that you can't export vaccinated cows? And if not, why not - what harm could it do?

Gavin! You're expecting a government department to learn from its previous mistakes?

I sympathise GBP Keith. I pray this cull does not come to east sussex, luckily we are mostly fruit here. But we will protect defend the badgers living on our land at all costs as they are a joy to see and have around and cause no bother whatsoever to anyone so there is no justifiable reason to kill them. I think you will find many non farming land owners feel the same way, so the cull will simply never work nationally and therefore is ridiculous.

Thanks for highlighting this Keith. And thanks too to sallyh for great precis of some of the issues involved. It seems, as is often the case, that we are shooting the messenger by performing a badger cull.

Small-scale reared, healthy cattle in the hands of capable and incentivised stockmen don't appear to have the same health problems that cramped and unhygienic mass-farming creates for itself. Add BgH and other highly questionable practices into the mix and you have an animal more prone to disease

But rather than address the issues of their unnatural farming methods, these people have to have a scapegoat or in this case badger. I think the science shows that badger-passed TB doesn't affect healthy cattle to any marked degree, - it certainly doesn't appear to bother the badgers any - and as sally h points out, it doesn't really matter to us if (another issue here) milk is pasteurised. Probably boosts our own immune system...

So it is the 'Bovine TB' tag itself which they seek to eradicate, not the disease, which will always be present, badgers or no. Gosh, whoever thought marktime and I would agree on anything?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-17435827
Welsh badger cull scrapped in favour of vaccination

Careful!

When I made the point that I thought that reducing TB in the badger population was a good thing, and that I supported a vaccination policy, I got into a fair bit of hot water, as I recall..........................

So they'll not be culling badgers in Wales then - didn't think the politicos would have the balls for that. So they'll be vaccinating them instead. Can we wait 20 years for that to work - not be any cattle left in Wales by then. I suppose it doesn't matter as now we can import beef from the USA what with their world class animal welfare and all!

Please sign this new government petition if you care about badgers. Please get your friends and family to do the same.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257/signature/new

Yes, waddonvale, I'm with you on this one. I think I made the same point about 18 months ago!

I 'second' Bot de Paille.

Posted By: GBP-Keith</cite>Please sign this new government petition if you care about badgers. Please get your friends and family to do the same.

<a href="https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257/signature/new" rel="nofollow">https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38257/signature/new</a></blockquote>

Done.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: henchard</cite>"No confirmed cases of tuberculosis in cattle in the area of the Thornbury operation were disclosed by the tuberculin test in the ten year period following the cessation of gassing"</blockquote>

How did that work then - did they put up a badger-proof fence to stop them getting back in again?

In my view, the rights to peaceful existence of a mammal that's probably been here longer than humans far outweighs the rights of humans to eradicate it because of the economic benefits they derive from the exploitation of cattle.

Thirded.
The science is pretty clear - we've had 14 years of it and i think I have read almost all of it.
Regarding the actual monitored results - the devil is in the detail as usual. It is possible to select results that favour what you want to explain. That is not how the science is suposed to work.

To summarize unscientifically... during the cull BTB was up and down all over the place in the immediate areas and all around. The immediate impact can clearly spread BTB if it is present to neighboring areas. There is some evidence that in the years after the cull some large enough areas had somewhat reduced BTB incidence for some time but it appears to be at the expense (and worse) of surrounding areas which can see prolonged. It is pretty clear that a cull does not eliminate BTB - not even close (one area that had some and then none is not proof). There is also no clear evidence that a larger scale cull would work for everyone unless badgers were completely eradicated... which would certainly result in a reduction (not elimination by any means) of BTB. If badgers are not completely eliminated then they return... ie. they move... far more than if they had not been eliminated. It just takes time for them to penetrate the large area that was wiped out. The centre will stay clear but the fringes are likely to be more at risk than if the cull had not taken place.

It's not just science. When you read it properly it seems like common sense too.
All the *independent* recommendations by people that are recognised experts in this stuff were to put vaccination way ahead at the top of the list.

PS: I am a farmer (though not for profit) with cows (and badgers - but don't tell anyone).