Sunday, November 22, 2015

"We can't tell which badgers are infected" say Defra.

That infected badgers could not be identified, has been the clarion call for as long as we have been investigating zoonotic tuberculosis (zTB) on this site. But as long ago as 1996, Professor, now Lord Krebbs, in his report to the Minister, predicted that a such method of identification would be available 'within two years'.  This is what he said:
7.9.5 We also recommend that the scope for using modern DNA amplification techniques, such as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for diagnosis should be further explored. The PCR is quicker than microbial culture and can detect the remnants of dead bacteria in addition to living organisms. If sufficiently sensitive, we see two applications for such a test.

(i) It could provide rapid screening of samples from badger carcases. We suggest MAFF should consider whether this might be an alternative to culture. We estimate that existing assays could be optimised within one to two years.

(ii) MAFF could monitor the presence and distribution of infection by environmental sampling of areas used by badgers.
It is said that a week is a long time in politics, but that 2 years to identify badgers infected with zTB has stretched to almost twenty.

 In 1996, when Lord Krebbs made that pronouncement, Great Britain slaughtered 3,776 cattle as TB reactors.

 But the work into PCR and zTB continued and in 2005 / 2006 Defra having risen from the ashes of the previous ministry label, MAFF,  screened many farmland mammals - [link] using this method. The reports were SE3009 and SE3010  and they cost £1.954 million.

 In 2006, Great Britain slaughtered 22,062 cattle as TB reactors and introduced pre movement testing and tabular valuation.

 During 2006 - 2011, Professor Elizabeth Wellington and her team from Warwick University were investigating the use of this non-invasive screening method for infected badger setts. They published their work, validated by three laboratories in two different countries, in November 2011: it can be viewed on this link - [link]

And encouraged by this work and the paucity of the skin test when used on camelids,  in 2012, a small group of alpaca owners, commissioned a qPCR screen. This used fecal and sputum samples from dead animals coming in increasing numbers to AHVLA's autopsy tables, as a Proof of Concept study. - [link]
It was to try and push forward a reliable live screen for these charming animals.

 In 2012, Great Britain slaughtered 37,735 cattle as TB reactors, Defra ratcheted down hard on cattle movements and zoned our country into areas of 'risk' for zTB. Their 'Edge' area is moving further northwards and eastwards, annually.

The then Secretary of State for Defra, Owen Paterson MP, (above)  liked the idea of a targeted cull and after learning of her previous work, commissioned Professor Wellington's team - [link] to conduct a wider field trial of their qPCR method, to see if it correlated with the known health status of badgers in Woodchester Park.
This was SE3280 which when published in 2014, also showed the most cost effective way of identifying infected groups, the number of samples needed, how they were collected and when.

At the same time,  Warwick's qPCR was and is, being used in the Republic of Ireland, comparing the findings of this test with mortem results for badgers caught in their reactive TB culls. It will report in due course, but we understand that as with the alpaca project, using correlation between visible lesioned, culture positive animals, this test is doing well.

However, after questions were tabled in the House of Commons about this method of screening, the fire blanket of  'we can't use it and it won't work' was given and yet again qPCR for identifying infected badger setts was on the back burner. Somewhat prematurely we feel.

Meanwhile, other organisations other than Warwick's team, had developed screening PCR tests which were said to be delivering wondrous results, so in June 2014 Mr. Paterson set up a comparison trial to find the best. This project was not the usual exercise in prevarication; it was a genuine attempt to seek out the best performing test, refine if necessary and to take it forward for routine use.
 It cost £360,065 and was labelled SE3289.

Samples were either 'putatively' (thought to be or assumed) positive or spiked with a known quantity of m.bovis, or 'putatively' (assumed) negative or taken from captive badgers. The samples were distributed to individual laboratories, who tested them according to six candidate's screens and then reported results to a statistician. No badgers were harmed during the trial. Or post-mortemed.

The results showed Test B (Warwick's qPCR) as the best performing of the 6 offered, having fulfilled 3 out of 5 criteria, and 4 out of  5 when spiked positive samples were substituted for those 'putatively' positive.
And the one 'borderline? That was specificity - false positives at group level on the 'putatively' negative samples offered.

Warwick's qPCR screen found by trial and error that to achieve a safe sensitivity (ability to detect disease) together with an acceptable specificity (few false positives) then certain criteria had to be followed.
1. A minimum of 20 samples, taken on non consecutive days. The blinded trial used 10 samples.
2. A minimum of 1000 units of m.bovis to work with. The blinded trial allowed 100 units many 'putative'.
3. An optimum 15 per cent background prevalence of infection. The trial used 10 per cent.

This trial could be compared to using a recipe to make a loaf of bread, and adding half the amount of yeast the recipe demands: then being surprised when your loaf doesn't rise to the occasion. But we digress.

The results are described by the trial's authors (Defra) who explain:
Test B was the best performing test overall. It meets three criteria and is on the borderline for two others: group level specificity and group level sensitivity. (It achieves the latter criterion when spiked samples are analysed but is on the borderline when putative (assumed positive) samples are analysed)
So Test B achieved 4 out of 5 of the criteria set by Defra, which considering the way in which it was watered down, is amazing. But what happens when it is reworked, using the protocols which the Warwick team have spent long years refining?

Using 20 samples (to prove a negative) 1000 units of bacteria and directed at a group of badgers with a background prevalence of disease which is in excess of 15 per cent, with samples collected spring/summer:
" the Sensitivity of Warwick's qPCR is 95.5 per cent and the Specificity 98.2 per cent."
 Having described the Warwick test's performance as 'the best performing' of  the 6 offered, and it having met 4 out of 5 criteria, using half the samples, one tenth of the bacteria it was designed for and at a lower assumed prevalence than optimum, what is its future?

The report concludes:
"The results of this inter-laboratory comparative study provide objective data on the relative performance of the diagnostic methods assessed. Only one test appears to be potentially suitable for taking forward to routine use. However, its borderline performance against some criteria highlight areas which may need further assessment and validation to fully understand the performance characteristics and utility of the test and hence determine if, and how, it could be best used practically.

The potential practical use of a badger faecal test will also depend on future Defra policy and how the use of this test would fit alongside other interventions and control policies. To support such decision making a cost benefit analysis maybe useful to provide more information on the cost of this approach relative to other options."
We would point out that three years into 25 year TB eradication plan, only three small areas have been licensed for indiscriminate culls. As far as we are aware, there is no follow up planned  for Somerset and Gloucestershire who finish their pilot culls next year. And apart from a small area of Dorset, there are no more in progress.

 Meanwhile several areas are vaccinating badgers, any badger they can trap, regardless of its health, a concept which Defra say they are keen that farmers accept and are 'pump priming' them to do so. BCG is  now is very short supply and the World Health Organisation has advised rationing its use - for human beings.

Cattle controls rain down in buckets and measures which made herd restrictions livable with, are being dismantled, brick by brick.

 Many farmers and certainly the general public are far more likely to embrace a cull of badgers which targets diseased animals, rather than a hit and miss affair, accounting for 70 per cent of animals in a given area but which might possibly fragment social groups.

The only driver for culling any animal should be the presence of disease. And this test used correctly, will show where that is in our increasingly  infected wildlife reservoir.
FERA estimate that in areas of endemic zTB, 50 per cent of badgers are now infected with this disease. 

 Bearing down with ever more stringent cattle controls has had no effect whatsoever in the past, and from 1996 when Lord Krebbs first referred to the use of PCR for this screening purpose, in almost two decades of repeating this futility, the number of cattle slaughtered has increased tenfold, from 3,776 to 37,735.

 The mantra driving this inaction, has always been "we cannot tell which badgers are infected. "

And now we can.

Monday, November 09, 2015

A sad story .....

We recently heard of this small alpaca enterprise and its struggle with biosecurity and zoonotic tuberculosis in its animals. The story also charts the added stress, anger and disbelief of the alpaca owners after their dealings with the government agency charged with eradicating zTB.
This body is now called APHA - the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

 The owners of Wellground Alpaca stud in Wiltshire, have listed on Facebook, a video diary telling the sad story of the havoc - [link] that TB can bring to any farm. When they attended the alpaca Futurity show in Coventry last March, and chose a new bloodline for their herd of animals, little did they realise the heartache this would cause. - [video link]

But added to the stress of losing this animal and its cria, was the shambles that is APHA, struggling to operate a TB eradication system which does not mention camelids, compassion or even common sense.

The Facebook diary reports that agency's communication was intermittent and often contradictory. Its stock of validated (but still poor) blood tests, patchy and the whole process of screening the remaining animals and for some, their destruction, far more prolonged, stressful and potentially dangerous, than it should have been.

From August to November 2015, the whole sad story is laid bare in this Facebook blog, ending with last week's entry from November 6th:
I have to admit now that I am struggling to keep this FB page going. It's hard to describe to anyone who has not gone through this. Those who have been through it will have a better understanding.

I have read how having bTB in a herd of alpacas has had terrible effects on people psychologically. Now I understand that. The problem is a culmination of events. It was bad at the beginning as you find out the horror of what has happened. Then that horror subsides as you become accustomed to your predicament. But the worst was yet to come.

The culling of animals that were not showing signs of illness is a terrible thing to have to do. Unlike sick animals being put out of their misery, they do not go quietly, your favourite babies fight you in trying not to die.And you don't want to be doing it anyway, you love them. It was beyond my imagination.

Now I don't sleep at night, reliving that awful day every night. Then the final insult to your sanity, the silent waiting for the next test after 90 days. It's a long wait.

Dreading the next test every day. It's the last thing you think of in bed at night and the first thing you think of if you wake from any sleep. Then I make myself write this FB page and I try to keep it all inoffensive.

Why? I must be mad. So if you don't hear from me for a while, hopefully you'll understand. Rob
For our readers, here are a few links to TB in alpacas, a subject which sadly, we have kept returning to.

A video clip of the effect of TB in alpacas - [link] which we posted in 2010, and this one, again from 5 years ago,  showing 'biosecurity' at shows. - [link]   

And then there are Defra's statistics for alpaca TB deaths, which at one point held a list of exclusions longer than the tables themselves. We highlighted some of the imaginative explanatory notes in this posting - link] and had a small success and a more realistic update when George met Eddy - [link] in 2013.

 The breed society (BAS)- [link] for alpacas has been, shall we say, less than enthusiastic, about promoting herd health of the alpacas it claims to support. Even when breeders are exporting the problem - [link] to other countries. Their fliers also seem to be much more keen on not culling animals which do not have TB (specificity of a test) than finding the ones which do (sensitivity) as we describe in this posting. - [link]

But all of this biosecurity advice is voluntary. Alpacas can and do move around not only being bought or sold, but to shows, agistments and matings with no records or tests for disease whatsoever. These are 'recommended' but not mandatory. - [link] And so often the result is a nightmare story like the one Wellground alpacas have described in their blog.

For more information on TB in alpacas, please visit the Alpaca TB website. - [link]

And please do not forget the reason why zoonotic Tuberculosis is such a dangerous killer - [link]
Two years on from that posting, we wish Diane Summers well in her continued struggle with this disease.

Alpacas are charming animals, but this type of encounter,

can so easily lead to this.

Tuesday, October 06, 2015

Statistical wizardry

The long awaited results on incidence of cattle TB, in the areas of the two pilot culls, or at least the first year of them, are now published. And indeed, Queen May, with guitar in one hand and badger in the other is crowing.

 "No statistical difference" he repeated, between a comparison block and the pilot cull areas in an article, published by Farmers Guardian - [link]. And everyone from Owen Paterson, who set the pilots up through the NFU who backed them, down to the farmers involved are 'lying'.

But can the farmers concerned - [link] be so wrong? And how can the drop of some 60 per cent in herds under restriction - {link] become so skewed after its journey through a computer?

In her paper - [link] reporting the methodology used for the analysis, Professor Christl Donnelly, of Imperial College explains:
"Herds under restriction for four or more months of the reporting period due to an incident that started before the reporting period were excluded from the analyses."
"Baseline date: The date on which the culling is initiated in an intervention area. Cattle bTB incidents prior to this date are not attributable to any effects of culling."
Now this lady and her electronic abacus have history. And unfortunately, many of us have had the misfortune to have lived and watched our cattle die, through all it has churned out. From BSE, to FMD the RBCT and now these pilot badger culls.

Whatever statistical wizardry has been employed, the first question asked of its results should surely be 'does it adequately reflect the situation on the ground?' Because if it does not, it is not only meaningless, it is misleading and wrong.

And it appears that as with the RBCT input data, a cut off date for inclusion of data from farms involved in these pilot culls, specifically excluded farms already under long term TB restriction and the results of culling the wildlife reservoir of infection, had on them.

Wizardry indeed. And if this really is the case, dead wrong.

Sunday, September 06, 2015

The longest of long grass?

Just as one small area of Dorset is licensed to do mathematically fraught cull of badgers this autumn, a new consultation - [link] appears from Defra. This closes on September 25th, so a short time frame, with we note, Environmental and Animal Welfare Campaigners at the top of a long list of consultees.

Tackling zoonotic Tuberculosis, a Grade 3 pathogen - where ever it is found - is not an option for Defra. They are signatories to International agreements which seek to eradicate this disease, to protect human health. And that includes wildlife, if it is found there.

Hence the deafening silence - [link] on this technology which allows the infected badger group to be identified with stunning accuracy. Far better to set Badgerists against livestock farmers, in a parody of the Roman arena and let them fight it out. This of course, after giving the former, the tools with which to find their prey - [link]

So what is asked in this latest wheeze which may invoke yet another delve into Queen May's pockets for a Judicial Review and  kick the control of badgers with zTB into the long grass?

This consultation is a short questionnaire which seeks to reduce the minimum area for a map drawn population control badger cull from 150 sq km to 100 sq km. Now that was the size of the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial zones, and one which John Bourne opined was too small. Subsequently the benefits outweighed the inevitable problems with occurred from cage trapping an infected population for 8 nights only, annually if you were lucky. Thus, hanging on these throw away remarks, the present cull areas of Somerset and Gloucestershire being three times that size and of longer duration.

 Together with a smaller minimum size, Defra also propose to increase the amount of landowner participation required to be accessible for culling to '90 per cent of land to be accessible, or within 200m of accessible land'. That is a complicated mathematical formula which takes no account of the presence of disease at all, and may in fact be more difficult to achieve in practice than the previous 70 per cent requirement. Who knows?

There is also a proposal to increase the time 'allowed' for culling but with Natural England giving itself the right to stop the cull at any time it thinks fit. They explain:
We want to know what you think about our proposed licence changes. They will provide more flexibility in the control of badger populations in areas where bovine TB is a problem and will increase the potential to achieve disease control benefits. The proposals would apply to applications to Natural England for a licence from 2016 onwards.
Of course if Defra used the research - [link] into the identification of infected setts, for which it the taxpayer has paid, then all of this long running farce would have to stop. And it would, as once an infected area and group of animals is identified, by international statute, Defra have to act on that information. They have no choice.

 On superficial examination, these proposals seek to tweak a flawed policy, which in turn was based entirely on a politically corrupt - [link] concept.  And our response will reflect that.

We would also question the roll of an environmental organisation such as Natural England in the licensing of what is ultimately an obligation to public health. And that concept could be explored further later this year.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

PCR - A Deafening Silence.

It's August and  MPs continue their annual bucket and spade jollies while farmers in areas of endemic zTB attempt to comply with some of the most ridiculous and imaginative obstacles - [link] ever dreamed up to prevent culling badgers infected with the disease.

But very quietly, and with no fanfare of which we are aware, Professor Wellington's paper on PCR is now published.

The project was set up in 2012, and some spurious results were offered to the then Secretary of State, Owen Paterson MP, which we quoted in this posting - [link]

They were premature and wrong, as the following outcome has shown. - [link}

 This project was commissioned by Defra, paid for by us, the taxpayer:  and has been met with a deafening silence. Not a peep out of the usual suspects, who are busy deepening the polemic between people running around with black and white cornflake packets on their heads, and farmers at the end of their tether trying to cope with ever increasing losses of reactor cattle (and sheep, pigs and goats)

In the first paper, Professor Wellington offered the following results of badger faecal samples taken in the summer:
* Sensitivity was 100 per cent

* Specificity 95.7 per cent
And she summed up the project, illustrating it thus:
"We suggest that a small number of social groups may be responsible for the majority of m.bovis shed in the environment and therefore present the highest risk of inward transmission".

This paper has now been accepted by and published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology. It can be viewed on this link - [link] and here is its conclusion:
"In addition to being equally or more sensitive than live-trapping diagnostics, the qPCR assay with latrine samples benefits from being non-invasive and less logistically challenging than live trapping and testing.

Our study has identified the potential value of qPCR testing of fecal samples collected from latrines for monitoring M. bovis shedding in badger populations at the group level. This may prove to be a valuable adjunct to trapping and live testing in field studies to investigate the epidemiology of M. bovis spread in badger populations.

However, the approach could be implemented as an alternative to capture and testing when the cost of the latter may be prohibitive for monitoring disease risks over relatively large areas.

For example, qPCR testing of latrine fecal samples could be applied at the edges of the areas in which TB is currently endemic in the United Kingdom or throughout high risk areas, in order to provide spatial information on relative levels of environmental contamination, which may facilitate monitoring of spread and targeting of management."
So there we have it. A non invasive field test, offering 100 per cent sensitivity using latrine fecal samples taken in the summer, with which to identify those badger groups causing most of the upspill into other mammals, farmed or companions. A targeted management strategy.
The cost, Prof. Wellington puts at around £200 per sett tested (20 samples)

This is something many farmers have been pushing for, as contrary to perceived wisdom lobbed about by the badgerists, cattle farmers do welcome healthy badgers as part of the overall ecology.

We would also point out that Natural England has issued recent 007 licenses to an establishment in Somerset- [link] allowing the owner to euthanize infected badgers -[link] prior to releasing their 'rescued' companions. Is there a difference?

So, an open question to Dr. May, et al.
Now that Professor Wellington and her team have developed a non invasive field test to identify infected groups of badgers, and a test which has given such stunning results, would you oppose its use merely to keep alive such animals as this poor creature, below?

Sunday, August 09, 2015


If our Department of Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are correct in their assertions that their latest toy, an interactive Map - [link] showing recent TB breakdown locations, was to 'prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis', how could they have presented it to those who are said to be the beneficiaries?

 There is restricted internet access known as Government Gateway - [link] which farmers and / or their agents, once verified, may enter with a Identification Number and a password. Those digits are unique to the registered user and this method of data exchange is compulsory now for many aspects of contact with Defra or its other agencies. It is secure. Vets have similar access to Animal Health sites.

 Government Gateway has a 'privacy policy'. The WorldWideWeb does not.

 So, musing on a Sunday afternoon - as one does - we wondered why this option was not considered for access to their new toy? Given that links which we have highlighted in a previous posting here - [link] and here - [link] give an insight into how the information is being used, by whom, and will, according to this man - [link] continue to be used, why was Government Gateway 'restricted access' not considered or given?

And if it was, but rejected, one can only assume that our posting below - [link] is correct and the consequences of Defra's actions, were entirely as expected.

The compilers of this data have specifically targeted farmers with the most recent TB breakdowns. The map shows no outbreak older than 5 years and has no record of TB outbreaks in llamas, alpacas, sheep, pigs, deer or goats. Thus blowing a rather large hole in Defra's weasel words explanations for its existence.

Farmers who are listed are thus sitting ducks. Cyber targets for bullying, intimidation, harassment or worse, courtesy of the Department charged with the eradication of zoonoticTuberculosis..

So does this map provide the 'biosecurity' which Defra say cattle keepers and vets want? We think not.

As we have pointed out, around a quarter of farms experiencing TB restrictions are not shown as the start of their outbreaks precede the 5 year window of this map. And no outbreaks in 'other species' are listed.

From past experience of Defra' s most extraordinary method of addition for overspill species outbreaks of TB, many in alpacas at least, will be 'tethered' to the original source and thus grossly understated.
For instance we are aware of one outbreak where over 100 alpacas were slaughtered. Animals sold, when traced had spread the disease to 8 or 9 other farms. But Defra's method of record keeping ensured just a single sample was listed which confirmed disease but also a single 'outbreak'. The other 8 or 9 were 'tethered' to the original farm. And a couple of hundred dead alpacas just 'disappeared.'

But back to our question. If restricted access by farmers and vets to this map was  considered - and rejected, who stands to gain from it? While many farmers are blissfully unaware of either its existence or the risk it poses to them and vets who have seen it are horrified, the Badgerist sites are crowing.

Comments such as 'Shining a light' on outbreaks are offered, as is the map being  'a Natural bactericide'.

We can read the runes, as can Defra. Using Badgerists to 'Stop the Cull'? Surely not.
Thus the question posed in our previous post, of consequences which were entirely intended by the Department of Food and Rural Affairs when publishing this thing, is repeated.

And once again, in our view, the inevitable outcome of its publication with unrestricted access, confirmed.

Thursday, August 06, 2015

(Un)Intended consequences?

We are still chewing the fat over Defra's publication on the WorldWideWeb, of recent bTB outbreaks (but none older than 5 years) and although usually erring on the side of cock up rather than conspiracy, we now begin to wonder.

 Today, Farmers Guardian published an article containing many quotes from people involved with the map - [link] and some from those on the receiving end.  Firstly from Defra, defending it publication:
A Defra spokesperson said: "We are not aware of any security risk to farmers as a result of and no personal information is accessible through this website."

The map complies fully with the 1998 Data Protection Act and 2014 Tuberculosis Order, Defra said.
When detailed views of your farm are plastered all over the internet, a spurious postmortem of dated outbreaks given and field owners named,  we would say 'security' was seriously breached.
And the fact that the 2014 Tuberculosis Order was amended last year to allow this, escapes no one.

The relevant addition, after warnings about the need to keep records of herd restrictions for three years, is paragraph 4 which states:
"Where a bovine herd loses its tuberculosis-free status the Secretary of State may publish information regarding that herd in any form that the Secretary of State sees fit for the purpose of helping other persons to protect against the further spread of tuberculosis."
And that sounds fairly innocuous - as many of Defra's statements do. And if it were merely to allow alerts to go out to immediate neighbours of a new breakdown, that would be sensible. But as for 'protecting against the further spread of tuberculosis', that is rubbish. And Defra know it.

Any farm with a breakdown older than Oxford University's 5 year window, is not listed. And according to Defra's own figures that amounts to around 1500 cattle farms. And if Defra are really serious about advertising their appalling record on eradicating zoonoticTuberculosis to the world, and think this map will help prevent the spread, why not add outbreaks involving llamas, alpacas, pigs, sheep, bison and goats?
Eradication of zTB is not an 'option' for Defra. It has signed International obligations to do so.

So we return to our title: (Un) Intended consequences. Following the ISG's ten year debacle on dispersing infectious badgers, known as the RBCT and where its arch magician described 'the political steer' - [link] which was followed diligently from its inception, we return to his inevitable conclusion.
Culling badgers would not happen.

But those pesky farmers would not go away and Defra had to keep culling their cattle. Shame on them.
So, using NFU as leverage,  Defra slashed cattle valuations, loaded  extra (cattle) regulations, all designed  to seriously hamper trade while actually do nothing about a wildlife reservoir whatsoever. 

Nothing if not tenacious, those stubborn cattle farmers tried so very hard - [link] to comply with the crazy protocols set out by a quango known as Natural England and a couple of areas actually managed to produce a pilot cull. More were planned to follow as the results on TB breakdowns in cattle and animals slaughtered in the first two areas, are reported to be pretty spectacular.

This despite monumental interference, harassment and intimidation by activists terrorists - [link] who continue to show no remorse whatsoever for their actions. And of course, they are reveling in the latest high resolution sat-nav routes to our farms, where they plan to repeat them. A quote in Farmers Guardian's article from Tiernan:
"From a point of view of advertising where the breakdowns are, you can see on the maps that have gone up so far it would be quite easy to say 'this farm' and you can put a crosshair on those maps and you can reproduce that.

"The maps will provide us – and have provided us - with a far better idea of where we should prioritise looking after badger setts because where there has been a breakdown those farms are far more likely to not only have signed up for a badger cull but more than likely will be out there shooting the badgers themselves.

There will be more attention paid to those that have had a TB outbreak."
The Badgerists websites are peppered with 'illuminating' comments about the effect they expect from the information Defra's map has provided for them. Phrases such as 'shining a light' on outbreaks and a 'natural bactericide', imply a more than passing interest in farms thus labelled. We can read the runes if Defra cannot.

 As former Secretary of State, Owen Paterson commented:
"The [cull] policy had been compromised all along, he added. “The antis placed so many obstacles to make it fail. I cannot tell looking back whether they were inside Government, outside or both."
And our use of the word 'terrorist' is not overstating the situation. Dictionary definition:
"The practice of using violent and intimidating methods especially to achieve political ends." 
But is not putting sensitive and personal data on a public website, which may give those intent on preventing lawful activities,  in fact aiding and abetting such 'terrorism'? We would suggest it could be.

And these were precisely the actions for which Camel Ebola (aka Jay Tiernan) was served with an injunction to prevent. But will it? Now that he and others can add cyber bullying to their list of credits, courtesy of  Defra, our Department of  Food and Rural Affairs, charged with eradicating tuberculosis. Even from badgers.

So in all seriousness we ask if the 'Stop the Cull' campaign could be run from inside Defra?

Events we have listed in a brief chronology on this link  include the political shenanigans known as the RBCT,  the cats cradle of cull protocol dreamed up by Natural England for badger culls and now that the inevitable consequences of publishing this map, would support that conclusion.

In fact as cattle farmers, everything we have experienced over the last twenty years, lead us to postulate that these consequences were exactly as intended.