30 Jan 2004: Column 536W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated on the estimated badger population of mainland continental Europe. [150897]
Mr. Bradshaw: The most recent assessment of the status of the badger (Meles meles) in Europe was published in 1997 1 .
The quality of information available from each country varied considerably and as a result it was not possible to accurately estimate the Continent's total badger population. In an earlier publication 2 , the same authors estimated that the European badger population was at least 1,220,000. At that time the British population was thought to be 250,000, which is approximately 20 per cent. of all European badgers.
1 Source:The conservation and management of the European badger (Meles meles) (1997). Nature and Environment No. 90; by H. I. Griffiths and D. H. Thomas; Council of Europe Publishing (ISBN: 92–871–3447–2).
2 Source:The status of the badger Meles meles (L.,1758) (Carnivora, Mustelidae) in Europe (1993) by H. I. Griffiths and D. H. Thomas; Mammal Review; 23, 17–58.
30 Jan 2004: Column 536W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what account is taken of routine sightings of badgers during daylight hours in calculating population size and density. [150945]
Mr. Bradshaw: Routine, or incidental, sightings are rarely suitable for estimating animal abundance, although such sightings can be useful for establishing the presence of a species in a locality—especially in the case of rare animals.
Badger sightings have been used to estimate densities, but only as part of planned surveys following a scientifically robust methodology (Heydon, M. J., Reynolds, J. C. and Short, M. J. (2000); Journal of Zoology; 251, 253–264). Furthermore, sighting-based surveys of badgers are carried out at night rather than during daylight hours, as this is when badgers are most likely to be observed above ground.
By far the most widely used method for estimating badger density is based on signs rather than sightings of badgers. During the national surveys carried out during the 1980s and 1990s badger numbers were extrapolated from the density of setts (taking account of their size and level of activity) and the average size of badger social groups.
Full details of the sett surveying methodology used in the last national badger survey are given in: "Changes in the British badger population, 1988 to 1997" by G. Wilson, S. Harris and G. McLaren (1997), published by the People's Trust for Endangered Species.
30 Jan 2004: Column 536W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the expected date is of completion of the project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem; what the budgeted cost of the project is; from which institution the project is being managed; and who the lead scientist is. [150474]
30 Jan 2004: Column 537W
Mr. Bradshaw: The expected date for completion of the project is the end of March 2005. The budgeted overall cost of the project is £1.48 million. The project is being managed by the head of the team at the Woodchester Park site of the Central Science Laboratory.
30 Jan 2004: Column 537W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will seek from the European Commission permission to compensate farmers who have suffered consequential losses as a result of the suspension of badger culling in reactive areas in the randomised badger culling trials. [150496]
Mr. Bradshaw: I do not plan to seek permission from the European Commission to pay compensation for consequential losses due the cessation of culling in reactive areas of the randomised badger culling trial. The decision to suspend the reactive culling element of the trial was taken because the preliminary results indicated that this action would reduce the risk of TB breakdowns.
30 Jan 2004: Column 537W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will conduct investigations into whether perturbation in badger populations can be eliminated or substantially reduced by improved culling programme design and execution. [150499]
Mr. Bradshaw: Defra has funded research into perturbation of badger populations subject to culling. The results of the most recent work are yet to be published.
30 Jan 2004: Column 537W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish data on the prevalence of TB in badgers in areas of high incidence in cattle herds. [150500]
Mr. Bradshaw: Details of the incidence of TB in badgers captured during operations of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial will be published once the trial is finished, which is scheduled to be mid-2006.
These data will give an indication of the prevalence of TB in the badger population in trial areas; one of the criteria for the selection of these areas was that there was a high level of incidence of TB in cattle herds.
30 Jan 2004: Column 537W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs based on the findings from post mortem examinations of badgers and other data, what her best estimate is of the number of TB-infected badgers existing in England and Wales; and what the best estimate was for that figure in 1994. [150507]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not possible to give an accurate figure for the number of TB-infected badgers existing in England and Wales because of the difficulty of estimating the size of the badger population and the reliability of the prevalence data available.
The prevalence of TB in MAFF-taken badgers collected in England and Wales each year from 1975 to 1996 is given in Appendix 10 of the Krebs Report (PB 3423).
30 Jan 2004: Column 538W
The prevalence of TB in Road Traffic Accident badgers collected in England and Wales each year from 1972 to 1996 is given in Appendix 11 of the Krebs Report (PB 3423).
A copy of the Krebs Report is available in the Library of the House.
Data on the incidence of TB in badgers collected under the present Road Traffic Accident survey and the Randomised Badger Culling Trial should yield more accurate information, but these data will remain confidential until the trial is finished, which is scheduled to be mid-2006.
30 Jan 2004: Column 538W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what level of TB in badgers is sufficient for the disease to be considered as epidemic in the population; and how in this context the term endemic differs from the term epidemic. [150508]
Mr. Bradshaw: Bovine TB is endemic in badgers in the UK; i.e. it is constantly present in badgers within this geographical area. An epidemic occurs where the occurrence of an infection increases clearly beyond normal expectancy. There is currently no evidence to suggest that levels of bovine TB in badgers have increased substantially in recent years.
30 Jan 2004: Column 538W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors increase the susceptibility of (a) badgers and (b) cattle to disease following exposure to M. bovis bacilli. [150513]
Mr. Bradshaw: Factors that increase the susceptibility of cattle to disease following exposure to M. bovis include general health, nutritional status and immunological capability. It is likely that similar factors are important in determining the susceptibility of badgers although no studies have been carried out on this particular subject.
30 Jan 2004: Column 538W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many badger setts that have been sticked have subsequently been found to have been recolonised; and what action is taken in the event that such recolonisation is observed. [150544]
Mr. Bradshaw: Sticking of a Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) sett is a method used to indicate whether the sett is in active use. The team carrying out the post-cull survey will note the sign and use this information to inform their report. It may be difficult to identify whether a sett has been recolonised or whether there are badgers remaining from the original colony which were not captured during the trapping operation.
RBCT design requires culling operations to be repeated annually in Proactive areas to maintain badger numbers as low as possible. During such operations, traps are placed on active setts on premises consenting to culling and additionally at locations indicating the movement of badgers from any adjoining non-consent land.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the Oxford University research on badger perturbation being carried out on behalf of her Department to be
30 Jan 2004: Column 539W
completed; when the report will be made available; who the lead scientist is; what the protocols are for this work; and what the budgeted cost is. [150546]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is expected that the Oxford University research on badger perturbation being carried out on behalf of the Department will be completed at the end of March 2004. It is likely that the final report will be available later this year. It is managed by a member of the university's Zoology Department. The project's protocol investigates whether the spatial and temporal scale of the perturbation processes, the pattern and speed of recolonisation and the relief of density-dependent inhibitions on reproduction and survival observed in the study area may be generalised. The budgeted overall cost for the project is £1.25 million.
30 Jan 2004: Column 539W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what statutory measures exist for the licensing and authorisation of badger translocations; under what conditions licences or authorisations are issued; which Department is responsible for implementing their provisions; and what the nature and level of supervisions are over persons licensed or otherwise authorised to carry out translocations. [150581]
Mr. Bradshaw: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 6 January 2004, Official Report, column 249W, and 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1186W.
The specific conditions imposed on any licence are tailored to the particular circumstances of the operation to be undertaken.
Licences are issued by the appropriate statutory conservation agency or agricultural department (English Nature and Defra, respectively, in England) depending on the purpose of the proposed translocation. The licensing body is responsible for specifying the conditions and licensee is responsible for complying with them.
All licensed translocations are closely supervised by the issuing authority and by wildlife advisers with experience in licensed badger operations from the Department's National Wildlife Management Team.
30 Jan 2004: Column 539W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, columns 214–15W, on bovine TB, and 15 December 2003, Official Report, column 631W, on badgers, what plans she has to revise guidelines to farmers on the height, positioning and protection of feed and water troughs following the findings of the Central Veterinary Laboratory on the climbing capabilities of badgers. [150594]
Mr. Bradshaw: Recent research has demonstrated that in some circumstances badgers are capable of reaching cattle feed troughs set at least 80 cm above the ground.
There are no plans to change the existing height guidelines, as trough heights must be set so that the cattle intended to feed from them can still reach the contents. However, investigation into trough design to deter access by badgers is being carried out.
30 Jan 2004: Column 540W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her Answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 218W on bovine TB, how many countries use the current skin sensitivity test as the primary diagnostic tool for bovine TB; and how many have reported problems with this test. [150492]
Mr. Bradshaw: There are a number of different types of skin test in use around the world. We do not hold comprehensive information on the number of countries using each of these tests nor the way in which these tests are interpreted.
All countries that have either eradicated, or have a programme to control, bovine tuberculosis use one or more forms of the skin test. The Government have close links with a number of countries in various stages of eradication and exchanges information and experiences on the use of the tests in the context of these programmes.
The Government are not aware of any country that has replaced the skin test as the primary test for bovine tuberculosis.
30 Jan 2004: Column 540W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is possible to determine the relative culpability of an owner of a herd in which a TB breakdown is recorded as to why animals become infected. [150502]
Mr. Bradshaw: In some cases, a TB breakdown may be attributable to a specific event, for example the purchase of an infected animal. In many cases, despite a veterinary investigation, it is not possible to determine the source of the infection with certainty. Defra does not attempt to determine relative culpability but has encouraged all farmers to take sensible precautions to reduce the risk to their cattle through the issue of the yellow "Better biosecurity" card and various booklets which contain guidance on disease prevention and control measures.
30 Jan 2004: Column 540W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many deer have been subject to post mortem examinations by her Department for the presence of TB during the least five years; and how many were found to be infected; [150514]
(2) what historical data are held by her Department on the prevalence of bovine TB in the British deer population; and what those data indicate as to the incidence of bovine TB in that population; [150516]
(3) what her estimate is of the population of wild deer in England and Wales; what the estimated prevalence is of bovine TB in that population; and what concentrations there are of the disease in the wild population. [150515]
Mr. Bradshaw: No statutory body routinely collects information on overall wild deer numbers in England and Wales. Stephen Harris et al. (1995) estimated the pre-breeding population sizes for deer in Great Britain (Table 1).
30 Jan 2004 : Column 541W
Table 1: Population of wild deer in England and Wales (estimated)
Species England Wales
Red deer 12,500 <50
Fallow deer 95,000 <1,000
Roe deer 150,000 50
Sika deer 2,500 0
Muntjac deer 40,000 <250
Chinese water deer 650 0
Total 300,650 <1,350
Source:Harris, S., Morris P., Wray S. and Yalden D. 1995. "A Review of British Mammals: Population Estimates and Conservation Status of British Mammals Other than Cetaceans". JNCC, Peterborough.
Table 2 shows the number of wild and farmed deer carcasses, investigated for TB between 1992 and 2002 and the number of samples where Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis) was found following bacteriological culture.
Table 2: Deer samples tested for bovine TB Total number of deer tissue submissions investigated by Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) Number of confirmed TB cases in wild deer Number of confirmed TB cases farmed/park deer Total number of deer confirmed with TB
1992 50 0 1 1
1993 33 1 0 1
1994 21 1 0 1
1995 (1)— 3 0 3
1996 (2)17 11 0 11
1997 11 3 0 3
1998 37 6 1 7
1999 49 7 3 10
2000 39 3 6 9
2001 28 0 1 1
2002 54 3 10 13
(1) Data not available.
(2) Most accurate data currently available.
Defra has funded a survey of wildlife in the south-west of England by the Central Science Laboratory. The first phase established whether Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis—the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) was present in a number of wild mammal species, including deer. M. bovis has been confirmed in five of the six established wild and feral species of deer in GB. The second phase of the survey (due to end March 2004) is to estimate prevalence of M. bovis in those species where it is found, by carrying out a more targeted and extensive sampling.
30 Jan 2004: Column 541W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) pursuant to her Answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 218W, on bovine TB, whether the occasions of severe interference in the operational Krebs triplets areas represented a significant interference; whether that level of interference affected the conduct and outcome of the trials; and what the effects were of that interference in terms of (a) the outcomes and (b) the costs involved; [150565]
(2) how many farms were affected during the Krebs trials by a partial clearance of the badger population which was subsequently stopped; how many partial clearances were undertaken after a delayed start; and how the incomplete clearances affected (a) the conduct of the trials and (b) their outcome. [150575]
30 Jan 2004: Column 542W
Mr. Bradshaw: There has been a level of illegal activity and interference with the operation of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial which is certainly undesirable and could be considered significant. The cost of replacing stolen, lost and damaged traps is estimated to be approximately £400,000. Other costs relate chiefly to the loss of staff time, which cannot be provided at proportionate cost.
At the time of cessation of the reactive strategy one premises was in the process of being trapped and the operation was concluded with only half the number of trapping nights completed. A number of other operations have been stopped early for a variety of reasons, for example bad weather or activity by animal activists. If an operation is not able to start as scheduled, it is extended to ensure that the standard period of two weeks' trapping is maintained.
Standard Operating Procedures take account of the possibility of interruption to trapping operations. Although interference varied across trial areas, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB found that the increase in the incidence of TB in reactive culling areas when compared with control (no culling) areas was consistent across all triplets.
30 Jan 2004: Column 542W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the percentage increase was in the number of TB reactor herds reported in 2003 compared with 2002; and what factors are believed to be responsible for this increase. [150576]
Mr. Bradshaw: In 2003, up to the end of November, there had been 2,880 new cattle herd TB incidents in Great Britain. In the same period in 2002, there were 3,035 new TB herd incidents reported.
It is difficult to draw comparison between 2002 and 2003, because the testing effort in 2002 was very much increased to clear the backlog of testing after the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001.
30 Jan 2004: Column 542W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many herds required 60-day tuberculosis tests in 1988. [150586]
Mr. Bradshaw: In 1988, 351 herds required short-interval ('60-day') tests.
30 Jan 2004: Column 542W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated infective dose is of TB bacilli (var bovis) in respect of cattle, by reference to infection portals; what the peak load is of bacilli that can be excreted in the urine of infected badgers; and what the predicted die-off rate is of the TB bacilli on grassland. [150591]
Mr. Bradshaw: Determination of the minimum infectious dose of Mycobacterium bovis in cattle is part of the TB pathogenesis research programme. Early indications are that the minimum infectious dose for cattle via the respiratory tract is relatively small; the lowest infectious dose recorded so far is 70 colony forming units CFU, when introduced by the intracheal route or 9,600 CPU by the intranasal route.
30 Jan 2004: Column 543W
Relatively high levels of M. bovis in the urine of badgers with renal TB have been identified by culture methods, so far bacterial loads of up to 300,000 colony forming units per millilitre of urine have been measured.
It is known that the survival of M. bovis on pasture is widely variable depending on climate and pasture type. In hot dry weather survival may be a day or less whereas in cool damp weather M. bovis may survive for several months and in some circumstances in excess of six months.
30 Jan 2004: Column 543W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 216W, on bovine TB, what other rapid assay techniques are (a) available and (b) in the course of development which have the potential to speed up the detection of M. bovis in suspected TB lesions submitted for laboratory analysis. [150597]
Mr. Bradshaw: Several liquid culture methods are commercially available for the isolation of bacteria of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex from clinical samples. These methods are mainly used in medical laboratories for the diagnosis of TB in humans. Although the liquid culture media can significantly shorten culture times, they have not been optimised for isolation of M. bovis. The growth requirements of M. bovis and M. tuberculosis are slightly different and culture media that work for one mycobacterium may not work so well for the other.
The Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) is evaluating the M. bovis recovery rates and ease of use of two of these liquid culture media compared with the traditional method used for cattle and badger tissues. Preliminary findings suggest that one of these systems might be adequate for rapid isolation of M. bovis from badger tissues. Additional experiments are under way to validate these findings and see if they can be extrapolated to cattle samples.
The VLA is also collaborating with the Imperial College in the design and optimisation of a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for the detection of M. bovis DMA in suspect TB lesions.
Although this is a priority area of research for Defra, it is unlikely that any of the new laboratory tests being evaluated can totally replace the traditional culture technique.
30 Jan 2004: Column 543W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether persons wishing or authorised to undertake the relocation of badgers are required (a) to carry out tests on those animals and (b) to await the results of any such tests before setting them free in their new locations. [150609]
Mr. Bradshaw: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1186W. To briefly reiterate, all badgers relocated under the authority of a licence are tested three times for bovine tuberculosis and are only released if all three tests are negative. A similar approach is also applied to the relocation of rehabilitated badgers by animal hospitals, only in this case testing guidelines are not mandatory, but are set down in a voluntary code of practice.
30 Jan 2004: Column 544W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the conclusions were of Professor Solly Zuckerman's 1988 report to the Ministry of Agriculture; and what his recommendations were for future strategy to protect (a) badgers and (b) cattle. [150713]
Mr. Bradshaw: A copy of Professor Zuckerman's 1980 report, in which he describes in detail his conclusions and recommendations, is available in the House of Commons Library.
30 Jan 2004: Column 544W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the effects of the use of more discrete methods of badger culling on culling results. [150893]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not possible to draw an accurate comparison between different methods of culling badgers because there are no reliable methods of estimating badger populations either before or after culling.
30 Jan 2004: Column 544W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage cull of badgers was originally proposed for the Krebs trials; how the culling was to be achieved; and in what ways the protocol was amended in the final version. [150895]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Krebs report advised that in reactive areas all badgers, including lactating sows, should be removed from all social groups with territories including the breakdown farm. In the proactive areas there should be total removal of complete badger social groups from localised areas at high risk of breakdown, before herd breakdowns occurred. It also recommended that the use of stop-snaring should be explored as an alternative to trapping, and that an expert group should be established to oversee the detailed experimental design and operation of the trial.
The group which was established, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, considered the possible use of snaring. It decided against this method of capture in favour of cage trapping and recorded the rationale for doing so in its first report (PB3881). That report also records its reasons for introducing a closed season for three months each year, when no trapping takes place.
30 Jan 2004: Column 544W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether any behavioural patterns have been observed in badgers showing signs of TB which predispose them to closer contact with cattle. [150944]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Central Science Laboratory has just finished a research project at Woodchester Park to investigate the behavioural consequences of bovine TB infection in badgers. The findings of this study will be published in the scientific press shortly.
Friday, January 30, 2004
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
29 Jan 2004: Column 481W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 20 November 2003, Official Report, column 1200W, how far in terms of linear distance badger culling extended from the buildings in reactive areas which housed cattle which were reported as TB reactors. [150489]
Mr. Bradshaw: Reactive culling attempted to remove badger social groups whose territories impinged on those parts of cattle premises where infected reactor cattle were housed or grazed, or from which their forage had been harvested. The extent of such removal operations varied depending on the outcome of badger activity surveys and local badger density. On average culling areas extended about 1 km around implicated land/buildings and was in the order of 5 km 2 .
29 Jan 2004: Column 481W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors determine the placing of badger traps in order to maximise the success of badger culling operations within the context of the Krebs trials; where traps have had to be repositioned to more discrete locations as a result of interference; whether that has required their positioning in sub-optimal locations; and what effect that has had on the conduct and the success of the culling operations. [150493]
29 Jan 2004: Column 482W
Mr. Bradshaw: Standard operating procedures for the Krebs Trial as ratified by the Independent Scientific Group advise on number and location for trap sites; saturation trapping on setts being the preferred procedure. Traps are located at other sites where consistent anti-Trial interference or denial of consent renders trapping at sites impossible. The impact of varying trap locations is unknown.
29 Jan 2004: Column 482W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the best estimate is of the additional cost to public funds of the (a) interference with and (b) theft of badger traps in the Krebs trials. [150494]
Mr. Bradshaw: Management records indicate that 6239 traps have been damaged during the Krebs Trial. A further 1926 have been recorded as stolen/lost, but a proportion of these have subsequently been recovered. The current replacement value of a badger trap is approximately £50.
29 Jan 2004: Column 482W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 210W, on badgers, what measures can be taken to reduce the risk to badger cubs inhabiting the same sett as an infectious female suckling badger from infection from M. bovis bacilli. [150548]
Mr. Bradshaw: Practical measures that could be used to prevent the possibility of an infectious lactating female from infecting her cubs have not yet been identified.
29 Jan 2004: Column 482W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 210W, what her estimate is of the typical proportion of badger faeces and urine deposited in latrines from a given social group; what proportion is distributed more generally over grassland; and what risk of M. bovis infection these deposits present to grazing cattle. [150550]
Mr. Bradshaw: Work carried out by Bristol University suggests that the proportion of faeces and urine deposited at latrines vary with badger density. The proportion of latrines located in different habitats is the subject of current research at the Central Science Laboratory, the results of which will be published in due course.
The majority of cattle actively avoid eating grass contaminated with badger faeces but tend not to select against grass contaminated with badger urine. Since most faeces tend to be deposited in latrines, which are often large and obvious, while urinations tend to trail onto pasture, infected badger urine at pasture might pose a greater transmission risk than infected faeces. However, there is likely to be some risk of onward transmission wherever either infectious faeces or urine are present on land grazed by cattle.
29 Jan 2004: Column 482W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2003, Official Report, column 522W, on badgers, what evidence there is that viable M. bovis bacilli remaining in badger setts
29 Jan 2004: Column 483W
following the culling of infected denizens can transmit the disease to healthy badgers which subsequently colonise those setts. [150567]
Mr. Bradshaw: M. bovis survival is promoted by low levels of sunlight, low to moderate temperatures and high relative humidity. A typical badger sett experiences 100 per cent. relative humidity at all times of year, a fairly constant temperature, which is always higher than ambient temperature and almost total darkness. Hence, although no quantitative studies have been carried out, it seems possible that M. bovis bacilli could remain viable in badger setts long enough to infect badgers during recolonisation.
For comparison, M. bovis has survived in manure for up to two years when buried at 5 cm deep, and for one year when buried 1 cm deep. On pasture, M. bovis has survived for five to 11 months.
29 Jan 2004: Column 483W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of cubs born to infectious sow badgers which themselves go on to develop TB with the potential to spread to other animals; and what assessment she has made of whether this poses a significant threat to (a) other badgers and (b) cattle. [150578]
Mr. Bradshaw: Transmission of infection between infectious females and their offspring is thought to be an important process in the dynamics of TB in badger populations. The Central Science Laboratory's Woodchester Park study has shown that there is a significant statistical relationship between the number of infected cubs in a social group and the presence of an infectious female. However, no assessment has been made of the proportion of cubs born to infectious females which themselves go on to become infectious.
29 Jan 2004: Column 483W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 217W, what warnings were given by her officials to farmers who were asked to volunteer for participation in the Krebs trials about (a) the risks involved in participation and (b) the consequences of failure of all or any part of the trials. [150582]
Mr. Bradshaw: The signing up of landowners agreeing to voluntary participation in the trial was carried out according to a Standard Operation Procedure ratified by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. Information on the Government's TB strategy and on the Culling Trial in particular was available in the form of fact sheets, website pages and reports from the Krebs and Bourne Groups. The basis for the Randomised Badger Culling Trial was well documented and communicated to participants by trained staff at the time of their voluntary agreement. Questions that could not be answered at the time on the basis of the briefing available were responded to subsequently in writing or by telephone.
29 Jan 2004: Column 483W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in cases where badgers have been translocated from the Krebs areas, whether her Department was informed of such translocations; and whether landowners were informed. [150584]
29 Jan 2004: Column 484W
Mr. Bradshaw: We are unaware that any such translocations of badgers from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial areas have taken place.
29 Jan 2004: Column 484W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to standardise the collation of data on bovine TB in a format which allows for a comparison with the Office International des Epizootics figures for incidence of TB; what she estimates the costs of so doing would be; and what assessment she has made of the merits of so doing. [150510]
Mr. Bradshaw: Bovine TB is a regional problem with a higher incidence of disease in the South West of Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. Defra publishes the incidence of TB in Great Britain on a regional basis, to demonstrate the regional distribution of incidents. The OIE requires a composite annual report for the whole of the United Kingdom. The composite report indicates the average incidence of TB in the UK; but does not demonstrate the localised incidence within the regions. The composite report which is provided each year, as required for the OIE, is derived by amalgamating the
29 Jan 2004: Column 485W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 210W, what the presumptive infective dose range of M. bovis is in respect of cattle; and whether some badgers suffering from bovine TB are capable of excreting sufficient numbers of M. bovis bacilli to constitute such an infective dose. [150526]
Mr. Bradshaw: Determination of the minimum infectious dose of Mycobacterium bovis in cattle is part of the TB pathogenesis research programme. Early indications are that the minimum infectious dose for cattle via the respiratory tract is relatively small; the lowest infectious dose recorded so far is 70 colony forming units (CPU) when introduced by the intracheal route or 9,600 CPU by the intranasal route.
Relatively high levels of M. bovis in the urine of badgers with renal TB have been identified. Bacterial loads of up to 300,000 CPU per millilitre of urine have been measured. This suggests that inhalation of as little as 0.03 ml of the urine could result in infection.
29 Jan 2004: Column 485W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 217W, what plans she has to extend the restrictions on the sale of milk from farms under TB restrictions. [150549]
Miss Melanie Johnson: I have been asked to reply.
The new European Union consolidated Food Hygiene Regulation, which is expected to come into force in January 2006, will not permit the sale of milk from reactor animals for human consumption—including milk that has been heat treated.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 20 November 2003, Official Report, column 1200W, how far in terms of linear distance badger culling extended from the buildings in reactive areas which housed cattle which were reported as TB reactors. [150489]
Mr. Bradshaw: Reactive culling attempted to remove badger social groups whose territories impinged on those parts of cattle premises where infected reactor cattle were housed or grazed, or from which their forage had been harvested. The extent of such removal operations varied depending on the outcome of badger activity surveys and local badger density. On average culling areas extended about 1 km around implicated land/buildings and was in the order of 5 km 2 .
29 Jan 2004: Column 481W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors determine the placing of badger traps in order to maximise the success of badger culling operations within the context of the Krebs trials; where traps have had to be repositioned to more discrete locations as a result of interference; whether that has required their positioning in sub-optimal locations; and what effect that has had on the conduct and the success of the culling operations. [150493]
29 Jan 2004: Column 482W
Mr. Bradshaw: Standard operating procedures for the Krebs Trial as ratified by the Independent Scientific Group advise on number and location for trap sites; saturation trapping on setts being the preferred procedure. Traps are located at other sites where consistent anti-Trial interference or denial of consent renders trapping at sites impossible. The impact of varying trap locations is unknown.
29 Jan 2004: Column 482W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the best estimate is of the additional cost to public funds of the (a) interference with and (b) theft of badger traps in the Krebs trials. [150494]
Mr. Bradshaw: Management records indicate that 6239 traps have been damaged during the Krebs Trial. A further 1926 have been recorded as stolen/lost, but a proportion of these have subsequently been recovered. The current replacement value of a badger trap is approximately £50.
29 Jan 2004: Column 482W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 210W, on badgers, what measures can be taken to reduce the risk to badger cubs inhabiting the same sett as an infectious female suckling badger from infection from M. bovis bacilli. [150548]
Mr. Bradshaw: Practical measures that could be used to prevent the possibility of an infectious lactating female from infecting her cubs have not yet been identified.
29 Jan 2004: Column 482W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 210W, what her estimate is of the typical proportion of badger faeces and urine deposited in latrines from a given social group; what proportion is distributed more generally over grassland; and what risk of M. bovis infection these deposits present to grazing cattle. [150550]
Mr. Bradshaw: Work carried out by Bristol University suggests that the proportion of faeces and urine deposited at latrines vary with badger density. The proportion of latrines located in different habitats is the subject of current research at the Central Science Laboratory, the results of which will be published in due course.
The majority of cattle actively avoid eating grass contaminated with badger faeces but tend not to select against grass contaminated with badger urine. Since most faeces tend to be deposited in latrines, which are often large and obvious, while urinations tend to trail onto pasture, infected badger urine at pasture might pose a greater transmission risk than infected faeces. However, there is likely to be some risk of onward transmission wherever either infectious faeces or urine are present on land grazed by cattle.
29 Jan 2004: Column 482W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2003, Official Report, column 522W, on badgers, what evidence there is that viable M. bovis bacilli remaining in badger setts
29 Jan 2004: Column 483W
following the culling of infected denizens can transmit the disease to healthy badgers which subsequently colonise those setts. [150567]
Mr. Bradshaw: M. bovis survival is promoted by low levels of sunlight, low to moderate temperatures and high relative humidity. A typical badger sett experiences 100 per cent. relative humidity at all times of year, a fairly constant temperature, which is always higher than ambient temperature and almost total darkness. Hence, although no quantitative studies have been carried out, it seems possible that M. bovis bacilli could remain viable in badger setts long enough to infect badgers during recolonisation.
For comparison, M. bovis has survived in manure for up to two years when buried at 5 cm deep, and for one year when buried 1 cm deep. On pasture, M. bovis has survived for five to 11 months.
29 Jan 2004: Column 483W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of cubs born to infectious sow badgers which themselves go on to develop TB with the potential to spread to other animals; and what assessment she has made of whether this poses a significant threat to (a) other badgers and (b) cattle. [150578]
Mr. Bradshaw: Transmission of infection between infectious females and their offspring is thought to be an important process in the dynamics of TB in badger populations. The Central Science Laboratory's Woodchester Park study has shown that there is a significant statistical relationship between the number of infected cubs in a social group and the presence of an infectious female. However, no assessment has been made of the proportion of cubs born to infectious females which themselves go on to become infectious.
29 Jan 2004: Column 483W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 217W, what warnings were given by her officials to farmers who were asked to volunteer for participation in the Krebs trials about (a) the risks involved in participation and (b) the consequences of failure of all or any part of the trials. [150582]
Mr. Bradshaw: The signing up of landowners agreeing to voluntary participation in the trial was carried out according to a Standard Operation Procedure ratified by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. Information on the Government's TB strategy and on the Culling Trial in particular was available in the form of fact sheets, website pages and reports from the Krebs and Bourne Groups. The basis for the Randomised Badger Culling Trial was well documented and communicated to participants by trained staff at the time of their voluntary agreement. Questions that could not be answered at the time on the basis of the briefing available were responded to subsequently in writing or by telephone.
29 Jan 2004: Column 483W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in cases where badgers have been translocated from the Krebs areas, whether her Department was informed of such translocations; and whether landowners were informed. [150584]
29 Jan 2004: Column 484W
Mr. Bradshaw: We are unaware that any such translocations of badgers from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial areas have taken place.
29 Jan 2004: Column 484W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to standardise the collation of data on bovine TB in a format which allows for a comparison with the Office International des Epizootics figures for incidence of TB; what she estimates the costs of so doing would be; and what assessment she has made of the merits of so doing. [150510]
Mr. Bradshaw: Bovine TB is a regional problem with a higher incidence of disease in the South West of Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. Defra publishes the incidence of TB in Great Britain on a regional basis, to demonstrate the regional distribution of incidents. The OIE requires a composite annual report for the whole of the United Kingdom. The composite report indicates the average incidence of TB in the UK; but does not demonstrate the localised incidence within the regions. The composite report which is provided each year, as required for the OIE, is derived by amalgamating the
29 Jan 2004: Column 485W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 210W, what the presumptive infective dose range of M. bovis is in respect of cattle; and whether some badgers suffering from bovine TB are capable of excreting sufficient numbers of M. bovis bacilli to constitute such an infective dose. [150526]
Mr. Bradshaw: Determination of the minimum infectious dose of Mycobacterium bovis in cattle is part of the TB pathogenesis research programme. Early indications are that the minimum infectious dose for cattle via the respiratory tract is relatively small; the lowest infectious dose recorded so far is 70 colony forming units (CPU) when introduced by the intracheal route or 9,600 CPU by the intranasal route.
Relatively high levels of M. bovis in the urine of badgers with renal TB have been identified. Bacterial loads of up to 300,000 CPU per millilitre of urine have been measured. This suggests that inhalation of as little as 0.03 ml of the urine could result in infection.
29 Jan 2004: Column 485W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 217W, what plans she has to extend the restrictions on the sale of milk from farms under TB restrictions. [150549]
Miss Melanie Johnson: I have been asked to reply.
The new European Union consolidated Food Hygiene Regulation, which is expected to come into force in January 2006, will not permit the sale of milk from reactor animals for human consumption—including milk that has been heat treated.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
28 Jan 2004: Column 378W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's statutory responsibilities are under the Animal Health Act 1981 in respect of the elimination of contiguous reservoirs of disease which have zoonotic and animal health implications. [150577]
Mr. Bradshaw: Under section 29 of the Animal Health Act 1981, the Secretary of State may, with a view to reducing the risk to human health of any disease of, or organism carried in, animals, make an Order designating any such disease or organism which, in her opinion, constitutes such a risk.
28 Jan 2004: Column 378W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem will also take into account (a) the impact of allowing unrestrained growth of the badger population and (b) the impact of controlled reductions in badger populations to various levels. [150473]
Mr. Bradshaw: Even where culling does not take place the local badger population is not undergoing 'unrestrained growth' as it will be subject to limits imposed by natural and human phenomena. The project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem will assess the impact on other wildlife of
28 Jan 2004: Column 379W
controlled reductions in badger populations to various levels, in comparison with areas where badgers are not culled.
28 Jan 2004: Column 379W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she reconciled the inability to estimate the effect of alternative capture methods of badgers which would remove 100 per cent. of the population with the findings during the Thornbury trial. [150490]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Krebs Report referred to the difficulty of assessing the effect of different control strategies on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns. The report says
"None of the control strategies have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy." (Krebs Report pages 82–83).
A comparison of reactive culling areas of the Randomised Badger Culling trial (RBCT) and the Thornbury clearance area is not valid. Although indicative of the effect on cattle TB incidence that might be expected if a total badger clearance were achieved, the Thornbury badger removal was performed without contemporary control areas. This limits its usefulness as a basis for comparison with the impact of lesser percentage badger clearances achieved by other methods, since any change in the incidence of TB in cattle subsequent to culling could have resulted in whole or in part from some other cause.
28 Jan 2004: Column 379W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 211W, what conclusions she draws from the data on the location of TB lesions in badgers as to the main route of infection; and whether it is possible to draw similar conclusions in respect of the data available on the location of TB lesions in cattle. [150491]
Mr. Bradshaw: Infection with Mycobacterium bovis most often causes lesions in the respiratory tract and the associated lymph nodes, which suggests that the most common route of infection in badgers and cattle is by inhalation, or ingestion followed by inhalation. In badgers infection by inoculation through bite wounds also a relatively frequent route of infection.
28 Jan 2004: Column 379W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the scientific rationale was for the choice of the different distance parameters adopted for the culling zones of badgers in (a) the Gassing Strategy and (b) the Clean Ring Strategy, of the Krebs trials. [150509]
Mr. Bradshaw: For the gassing strategy: where TB infection was found in badgers, an area of up to one kilometre from the farm boundary was surveyed, to include the full territories of badgers on the infected farm. Social groupings were identified and all infected social groups, and groups in contact with them, were gassed. The area gassed was determined by the location of infected farms, infected badgers, sett groupings and natural boundaries. (Krebs Report 1997, page 142)
For the Clean Ring strategy: infected social groups, and those contiguous with them were culled. Culling, of social groups that were contiguous to groups found to be infected, continued until a clean ring of social groups
28 Jan 2004: Column 380W
containing no infected animals was found and removed, or else there were no badgers found. (Krebs Report page 143)
The use of broadly circular treatment areas of 100 km2 for the Randomised Badger Culling Trial is explained on pages 8–9 of the first report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB and is based on the suggested use of 10km by 10km squares in the Krebs Report, pages 90–93.
28 Jan 2004: Column 380W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what distances can be travelled by adult badgers from their setts to their food sources; and what the radii were of the Krebs (a) reactive and (b) proactive areas. [150512]
Mr. Bradshaw: Adult badgers can travel between a few metres and a few kilometres from their setts to their food sources dependent on the quality of the habitat. None of the Krebs reactive and proactive areas are completely circular, so no exact radii can be evaluated. Trial areas are initially described using a 5.64 km radius circle but this shape is distorted by natural features and survey data to end up with areas of around 100 sq km. However, details of the total surface areas of the Krebs reactive and proactive areas are available on the Defra Internet site.
28 Jan 2004: Column 380W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 211W, on badgers, what proportion of badgers culled as part of TB control strategies conducted during 1979–97 tested positive for M. bovis; and what the percentage was in (a) 1975–82, (b) 1982–88 and (c) 1988–97. [150547]
Mr Bradshaw: The following table gives these data:
Period 1979–97 1975–82 1982–88 1988–97
Badgers culled 20,252 2,661 6,367 13,401
Badgers positive for M. bovis 3,985 283 966 3,118
Percentage 20.1 10.7 15.2 24.0
28 Jan 2004: Column 380W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 212W, what inferences can be drawn from the preponderance of TB lesions found in badgers on post mortem examination arising in the lymphatic nodes of head and chest as to (a) the portal of infection, (b) the possible routes of infection and (c) the risk presented by those badgers to other animals. [150564]
Mr. Bradshaw: Infection with Mycobacterium bovis frequently causes lesions in the respiratory tract and the associated lymph nodes of badgers, which suggests that a common route of infection is by inhalation, or ingestion followed by inhalation. Where there is infection of the respiratory tract, it is probable that there are phases of M. bovis excretion of infected saliva via the respiratory tract, which may contaminate pasture or animal feed containers.
28 Jan 2004: Column 380W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether material contaminated with the M. bovis bacilli deposited on grassland by badgers and subsequently entrained in hay
28 Jan 2004: Column 381W
used for the feeding of cattle is considered to present a significant risk of infection to (a) cattle, (b) farmers and (c) other persons who may handle this material. [150570]
Mr. Bradshaw: As the organism Mycobacterium bovis prefers damp mild conditions it is unlikely to survive the hay making process. We consider that there is no significant risk of infection to cattle, farmers or other persons who may handle hay.
28 Jan 2004: Column 381W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many Krebs reactive areas badger culling was commenced in May 2003; how many farms were involved in these areas; how many of those farms had had (a) one and (b) two 60-day tests after the clearance operations; and what the results were of those tests. [150579]
Mr. Bradshaw: The first reactive operation in Triplet I commenced in May 2003. Reactive operations in Triplets A, B and C had commenced prior to May 2003 and further operations occurred during May 2003 in these Triplets.
The number of infected cattle herds triggering reactive culling operations in May 2003 in Triplets I, A, B and C totalled 20. The number and testing details of premises over which these operations took place cannot be provided at proportionate cost.
28 Jan 2004: Column 381W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what methods other than gassing are available for the culling of badgers; and what statutory restrictions apply to those alternatives. [150585]
Mr. Bradshaw: Gassing is not a legal method of killing badgers.
The badger is a fully protected species. It is an offence to kill (or attempt to kill) a badger by any method (Protection of Badgers Act 1992 s.1(1)).
Badgers are also listed under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it a specific offence to poison badgers (including by gassing) (s.11(2)(a)).
A person guilty of these offences is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
Where killing is carried out under a licence issued by Defra, the technique employed will depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case, but will normally involve cage trapping and humane dispatch by shooting.
28 Jan 2004: Column 381W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes there were in the protocol for badger trapping in the period 1975 to 1997; and what effect they had on the success rate of trapping operations. [150590]
Mr. Bradshaw: The key operational features of badger control strategies from 1975 to 1996 are set out in Appendix 3 to the Krebs Report. We have no validated data on the success rate of the various culling strategies.
28 Jan 2004: Column 382W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 212W, on badgers, what her best estimate is of the typical kill rates of badgers during the Krebs culling programmes; what the worst rates were; and what the impact was of low kill rates on the (a) conduct and (b) outcome of the trials. [150592]
Mr. Bradshaw: There is no precise way of measuring badger populations pre- and post-culling operations and estimates are made in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial based on field signs at a sample number of setts. Culling success is affected by a range of factors including levels of access, anti-trial activity and the time of the year, and where proactive culling in a triplet has been carried out at a sub-optimal time the next cull, where possible, is planned for more optimal periods.
28 Jan 2004: Column 382W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what precautions can be taken by farmers to guarantee freedom from TB in cattle bought into herds; and to what extent she advises that they can rely on a test or other certification attesting to freedom from TB infection. [150495]
Mr. Bradshaw: There can be no guarantee of remaining free of bovine TB. However farmers are encouraged to take all practical disease prevention measures to reduce the risk of disease introduction when bringing in new stock, including arranging a tuberculin test of purchased cattle before they are brought into to the resident herd.
The Department provides advice in the form of a freely available booklet "TB in Cattle—Reducing the Risk". A concise list of disease prevention measures which was developed with livestock industry representatives and vets, was sent to all livestock farmers in 2002; it can be found on the Defra website.
The comparative tuberculin skin test is used to certify that cattle herds are free from bovine tuberculosis, the comparative skin test at the standard interpretation, provides sensitivity in the range 68 per cent. to 95 per cent. and specificity in the range in the range 96 per cent. to 99 per cent.
Clearly a negative test result on individual animals brought into a herd will not guarantee their freedom from disease, although it will substantially reduce the risk. A recent clear herd test result for the herd of origin will reduce the risk that imported animals have been exposed to infection still further.
28 Jan 2004: Column 382W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the consultation on the new TB strategy will commence; and whether she expects that the detailed results and conclusions from the Krebs trials will be available prior to that consultation. [150497]
Mr. Bradshaw: We aim to publish a consultation document "Preparing for a new GB Strategy on bovine tuberculosis" in February. The document will represent the outcome of the first stage of the review announced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at last year's NFU Annual General
28 Jan 2004 : Column 383W
Meeting. The consultation document will contain proposals for action in the short term including measures to prevent the geographical spread of the disease.
The Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB (ISG) anticipates that the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (or the 'Krebs Trial') operations will be complete by 2006. The ISG will report to Ministers thereafter.
28 Jan 2004: Column 383W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the total expenditure by her Department on investigating the pathogenesis and epidemiology of Bovine TB since 1997; and what the planned expenditure is over the next five years. [150498]
Mr. Bradshaw: Total expenditure since 1997 on research projects investigating the pathogenesis and epidemiology of Bovine TB is £17.3 million. Research already commissioned for 2004–5 onwards totals £5.6 million and consultations for research requirements to start from the financial year 05–06 have been initiated. Epidemiology and pathogenesis will continue to be important parts of the bovine TB research programme.
28 Jan 2004: Column 383W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to compensate herd owners for uninsurable losses arising from the event of a TB herd breakdown. [150501]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Government currently pays compensation to farmers for the market value of all cattle slaughtered under the TB control programme. There are no plans to compensate for consequential losses.
28 Jan 2004: Column 383W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what inference she has drawn from the number of slaughterhouse cases of bovine TB as to the efficacy of the TB surveillance programme. [150503]
Mr. Bradshaw: The examination of carcases in the slaughterhouse complements surveillance through the periodic testing of cattle. Identification of infected carcases in slaughterhouses does not necessarily reflect a failure of the tuberculin test to detect the infection: given that infected cattle can develop grossly visible lesions within a relatively short time after infection with Mycobacterium bovis, it would be expected that some animals will become infected and be presented for slaughter in the intervals between herd tests, which can last up to four years. In recent years, the proportion of TB incidents that are detected in the slaughterhouse is lower in parishes where herds are tested more frequently, in other words frequent tuberculin testing reduces the risk that diseased cattle are disclosed during slaughterhouse inspection.
28 Jan 2004: Column 383W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action is taken in respect of slaughterhouse cases of bovine TB to trace the animals back to the farm of origin; what proportion of these cases were traced back to source in the last five years; and how many herds identified as a result of such action were subsequently confirmed as TB breakdowns. [150504]
28 Jan 2004: Column 384W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has identified a statistically significant correlation between the distribution of TB infection in badgers and the distribution of TB in cattle. [150505]
Mr. Bradshaw: The report from the Independent Scientific Review Group, chaired by Sir John Krebs, which reported in 1997, concluded that there was "strong evidence for an association between TB in cattle and badgers". This relationship will be investigated further using data collected in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial, which is currently underway.
28 Jan 2004: Column 384W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where slaughterhouse cases of bovine TB are identified as having originated in animals which have transited through livestock markets immediately prior to despatch for slaughter; what measures are taken in those markets to contain the spread of disease; and what action is taken to trace possible contact animals consequently confirmed as TB breakdowns. [150506]
Mr. Bradshaw: The transmission of the causative organism, Mycobacterium bovis, between cattle requires in most cases for the animals to be in close proximity with each other. While there is a risk that the organism could be transmitted between cattle at a market, conditions are such that this is a relatively low risk. Thus tracings of cattle that have come into contact with infected animals do not take into account contacts that take place in markets.
28 Jan 2004: Column 384W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what herd TB breakdowns have been recorded in the last 10 years in areas (a) where there have been no badgers detected and (b) following complete clearance of badgers. [150511]
Mr. Bradshaw: There is insufficient reliable data on the extent and varying density of the badger population of Great Britain to identify, with any certainty, areas where there is an absence of badgers. No area, in the last 10 years, has been completely cleared of badgers.
28 Jan 2004: Column 384W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what causation models, or combinations thereof, are being used by her Department to determine the cause of bovine TB and
28 Jan 2004: Column 385W
mechanisms of transmission; what the specific criteria are which make up the models; and which criteria remain to be satisfied before a firm association can be made between the presence of infection in the badger population and the presence of the disease in cattle. [150517]
28 Jan 2004: Column 385W
Mr. Bradshaw: To help to determine the cause of bovine TB and mechanisms of transmission, the Department has investigated spatially explicit GIS-based stochastic simulation badger/TB models. The models are complex and are described in detail in a range of scientific publications available from the Central Science Laboratory. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial is seeking to address the question of the contribution of the presence of infection in badgers to the presence of the disease in cattle, and results will be available in due course.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with regard to the TB control operation in Thornbury, what the level was of cattle TB in the trial area prior to the removal of badgers; how many times, by what methods, and how thoroughly the removal was effected; whether these operations led to an elimination of badgers; how soon after the completion of operations badgers re-colonised the area; and at what level the re-colonisation was noted. [150572]
Mr. Bradshaw: The incidence of herds with visible lesion reactors in the Thornbury intervention area, prior to badger clearance starting, was 74 in 1,314 herd years or 5.6 per cent. No reliable record exists of the number of gassing operations, but the Zuckerman Report refers to gassing starting in December 1975 and continuing to August 1976. Many setts were re-colonised immediately and "a considerable amount of re-gassing was necessary". The gas used in Thornbury was hydrogen cyanide and the badger activity was reduced to a "low level by 1979–80" (Zuckerman Report). The badger population at Thornbury took about 10 years to recover once action to prevent re-colonisation ceased.
28 Jan 2004: Column 385W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with regard to the TB control operation in Thornbury, for how long after the completion of operations cattle remained clear of TB, as assessed by use of cattle tuberculin tests. [150573]
Mr. Bradshaw: No confirmed cases of tuberculosis in cattle in the area of the Thornbury operation were disclosed by the tuberculin test in the 10-year period following the cessation of gassing.
28 Jan 2004: Column 385W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2003, Official Report, column 525W, when she expects to be able to release details of the content and funding of the future TB research programme, with specific reference to the funding of vaccine research. [150588]
Mr. Bradshaw: Future funding of the TB research programme, in common with all Government expenditure, will be considered as part of the 2004 Spending Review, which is under way and will be finalised later in the year.
28 Jan 2004: Column 386W
Future TB research requirements, including those for vaccine research, will be announced in May or June with the publication of the Animal Health and Welfare Research Requirements Document (RRD). Details of bovine TB research work currently being funded by Defra can be found on the Defra website.
28 Jan 2004: Column 386W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 216W, what criteria have to be satisfied by (a) farmers and (b) livestock hauliers in order to gain multiple pick-up approval; who is responsible for granting approval; and what costs are involved in granting approval. [150595]
Mr. Bradshaw: All multiple pick-ups and drop-offs must take place at premises that have prior approval from Defra to operate as a multiple pick-up/drop-off site. The conditions under which multiple pick-ups and drop-offs may take place are set out in Annex B of the General Licences for cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. These licences can be found on the Defra website.
Inspectors or local veterinary inspectors are at Defra's expense. An inspection is carried out to ensure that the requirements of the licences can be met. The inspection is carried out either by animal health officers, veterinary officers, temporary veterinary inspectors or local veterinary inspectors and is at Defra's expense.
28 Jan 2004: Column 386W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further estimate she has made of the increase in bovine TB following the discontinuance of reactive culling. [150625]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISO) has indicated that it will continue to analyse data from the treatment areas randomised as reactive areas as part of its regular interim analyses. The next such analysis, using data to March 2004, is expected to take place in April.
28 Jan 2004: Column 386W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2003, Official Report, column 523W, on badgers, how many individual clearance operations in the Krebs areas were specifically related to individual farms; how many such operations covered more than one farm; and what difference there was in the TB incidence in cattle on farms which were part of an operation covering more than one farm as compared with those which were subject to an operation covering only one farm. [150775]
Mr. Bradshaw: Management records indicate that 78 reactive operations were carried out under the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and these involved 172 notified, infected premises. Of these operations, 37 related to a single infected premise. The extent of TB incidence was not a factor considered when grouping geographically proximal breakdown premises for reactive culling operations.
28 Jan 2004: Column 386W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Department's responses to Professor Zuckerman's recommendations on protecting badgers and cattle from TB. [150858]
28 Jan 2004: Column 387W
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department's responses to Professor Zuckerman's recommendations are summarised in Appendix 1 of Professor Dunnet's report to the Department in 1986 entitled "Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis—Review of Policy". A copy of the report is available in the House of Commons Library.
28 Jan 2004: Column 387W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the (a) proactive and (b) reactive and (c) control areas of the Krebs trials underwent boundary changes after initial designation of the areas; and when these changes occurred. [150894]
Mr. Bradshaw: All trial areas were modified marginally to include or exclude whole farm premises following surveying and prior to initial proactive culling. On occasions, slight changes in treatment boundary have been agreed by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB in response to changes observed in badger activity and social group organisation.
28 Jan 2004: Column 387W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department have established a field scale experiment to model postulated modes of transmission of bovine TB between badgers and cattle to test hypotheses relating to the spread mechanisms of the disease using live or attenuated TB bacilli, or indicator organisms which mimic the behaviour of the TB bacilli. [150943]
Mr. Bradshaw: Defra has not established a trial of this nature. Epidemiological surveys are being undertaken which will provide information on risk factors associated with the occurrence of disease outbreaks.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's statutory responsibilities are under the Animal Health Act 1981 in respect of the elimination of contiguous reservoirs of disease which have zoonotic and animal health implications. [150577]
Mr. Bradshaw: Under section 29 of the Animal Health Act 1981, the Secretary of State may, with a view to reducing the risk to human health of any disease of, or organism carried in, animals, make an Order designating any such disease or organism which, in her opinion, constitutes such a risk.
28 Jan 2004: Column 378W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem will also take into account (a) the impact of allowing unrestrained growth of the badger population and (b) the impact of controlled reductions in badger populations to various levels. [150473]
Mr. Bradshaw: Even where culling does not take place the local badger population is not undergoing 'unrestrained growth' as it will be subject to limits imposed by natural and human phenomena. The project designed to assess the impact of removing badgers from the ecosystem will assess the impact on other wildlife of
28 Jan 2004: Column 379W
controlled reductions in badger populations to various levels, in comparison with areas where badgers are not culled.
28 Jan 2004: Column 379W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she reconciled the inability to estimate the effect of alternative capture methods of badgers which would remove 100 per cent. of the population with the findings during the Thornbury trial. [150490]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Krebs Report referred to the difficulty of assessing the effect of different control strategies on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns. The report says
"None of the control strategies have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy." (Krebs Report pages 82–83).
A comparison of reactive culling areas of the Randomised Badger Culling trial (RBCT) and the Thornbury clearance area is not valid. Although indicative of the effect on cattle TB incidence that might be expected if a total badger clearance were achieved, the Thornbury badger removal was performed without contemporary control areas. This limits its usefulness as a basis for comparison with the impact of lesser percentage badger clearances achieved by other methods, since any change in the incidence of TB in cattle subsequent to culling could have resulted in whole or in part from some other cause.
28 Jan 2004: Column 379W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 211W, what conclusions she draws from the data on the location of TB lesions in badgers as to the main route of infection; and whether it is possible to draw similar conclusions in respect of the data available on the location of TB lesions in cattle. [150491]
Mr. Bradshaw: Infection with Mycobacterium bovis most often causes lesions in the respiratory tract and the associated lymph nodes, which suggests that the most common route of infection in badgers and cattle is by inhalation, or ingestion followed by inhalation. In badgers infection by inoculation through bite wounds also a relatively frequent route of infection.
28 Jan 2004: Column 379W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the scientific rationale was for the choice of the different distance parameters adopted for the culling zones of badgers in (a) the Gassing Strategy and (b) the Clean Ring Strategy, of the Krebs trials. [150509]
Mr. Bradshaw: For the gassing strategy: where TB infection was found in badgers, an area of up to one kilometre from the farm boundary was surveyed, to include the full territories of badgers on the infected farm. Social groupings were identified and all infected social groups, and groups in contact with them, were gassed. The area gassed was determined by the location of infected farms, infected badgers, sett groupings and natural boundaries. (Krebs Report 1997, page 142)
For the Clean Ring strategy: infected social groups, and those contiguous with them were culled. Culling, of social groups that were contiguous to groups found to be infected, continued until a clean ring of social groups
28 Jan 2004: Column 380W
containing no infected animals was found and removed, or else there were no badgers found. (Krebs Report page 143)
The use of broadly circular treatment areas of 100 km2 for the Randomised Badger Culling Trial is explained on pages 8–9 of the first report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB and is based on the suggested use of 10km by 10km squares in the Krebs Report, pages 90–93.
28 Jan 2004: Column 380W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what distances can be travelled by adult badgers from their setts to their food sources; and what the radii were of the Krebs (a) reactive and (b) proactive areas. [150512]
Mr. Bradshaw: Adult badgers can travel between a few metres and a few kilometres from their setts to their food sources dependent on the quality of the habitat. None of the Krebs reactive and proactive areas are completely circular, so no exact radii can be evaluated. Trial areas are initially described using a 5.64 km radius circle but this shape is distorted by natural features and survey data to end up with areas of around 100 sq km. However, details of the total surface areas of the Krebs reactive and proactive areas are available on the Defra Internet site.
28 Jan 2004: Column 380W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 211W, on badgers, what proportion of badgers culled as part of TB control strategies conducted during 1979–97 tested positive for M. bovis; and what the percentage was in (a) 1975–82, (b) 1982–88 and (c) 1988–97. [150547]
Mr Bradshaw: The following table gives these data:
Period 1979–97 1975–82 1982–88 1988–97
Badgers culled 20,252 2,661 6,367 13,401
Badgers positive for M. bovis 3,985 283 966 3,118
Percentage 20.1 10.7 15.2 24.0
28 Jan 2004: Column 380W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 212W, what inferences can be drawn from the preponderance of TB lesions found in badgers on post mortem examination arising in the lymphatic nodes of head and chest as to (a) the portal of infection, (b) the possible routes of infection and (c) the risk presented by those badgers to other animals. [150564]
Mr. Bradshaw: Infection with Mycobacterium bovis frequently causes lesions in the respiratory tract and the associated lymph nodes of badgers, which suggests that a common route of infection is by inhalation, or ingestion followed by inhalation. Where there is infection of the respiratory tract, it is probable that there are phases of M. bovis excretion of infected saliva via the respiratory tract, which may contaminate pasture or animal feed containers.
28 Jan 2004: Column 380W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether material contaminated with the M. bovis bacilli deposited on grassland by badgers and subsequently entrained in hay
28 Jan 2004: Column 381W
used for the feeding of cattle is considered to present a significant risk of infection to (a) cattle, (b) farmers and (c) other persons who may handle this material. [150570]
Mr. Bradshaw: As the organism Mycobacterium bovis prefers damp mild conditions it is unlikely to survive the hay making process. We consider that there is no significant risk of infection to cattle, farmers or other persons who may handle hay.
28 Jan 2004: Column 381W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many Krebs reactive areas badger culling was commenced in May 2003; how many farms were involved in these areas; how many of those farms had had (a) one and (b) two 60-day tests after the clearance operations; and what the results were of those tests. [150579]
Mr. Bradshaw: The first reactive operation in Triplet I commenced in May 2003. Reactive operations in Triplets A, B and C had commenced prior to May 2003 and further operations occurred during May 2003 in these Triplets.
The number of infected cattle herds triggering reactive culling operations in May 2003 in Triplets I, A, B and C totalled 20. The number and testing details of premises over which these operations took place cannot be provided at proportionate cost.
28 Jan 2004: Column 381W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what methods other than gassing are available for the culling of badgers; and what statutory restrictions apply to those alternatives. [150585]
Mr. Bradshaw: Gassing is not a legal method of killing badgers.
The badger is a fully protected species. It is an offence to kill (or attempt to kill) a badger by any method (Protection of Badgers Act 1992 s.1(1)).
Badgers are also listed under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it a specific offence to poison badgers (including by gassing) (s.11(2)(a)).
A person guilty of these offences is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
Where killing is carried out under a licence issued by Defra, the technique employed will depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case, but will normally involve cage trapping and humane dispatch by shooting.
28 Jan 2004: Column 381W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes there were in the protocol for badger trapping in the period 1975 to 1997; and what effect they had on the success rate of trapping operations. [150590]
Mr. Bradshaw: The key operational features of badger control strategies from 1975 to 1996 are set out in Appendix 3 to the Krebs Report. We have no validated data on the success rate of the various culling strategies.
28 Jan 2004: Column 382W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 212W, on badgers, what her best estimate is of the typical kill rates of badgers during the Krebs culling programmes; what the worst rates were; and what the impact was of low kill rates on the (a) conduct and (b) outcome of the trials. [150592]
Mr. Bradshaw: There is no precise way of measuring badger populations pre- and post-culling operations and estimates are made in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial based on field signs at a sample number of setts. Culling success is affected by a range of factors including levels of access, anti-trial activity and the time of the year, and where proactive culling in a triplet has been carried out at a sub-optimal time the next cull, where possible, is planned for more optimal periods.
28 Jan 2004: Column 382W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what precautions can be taken by farmers to guarantee freedom from TB in cattle bought into herds; and to what extent she advises that they can rely on a test or other certification attesting to freedom from TB infection. [150495]
Mr. Bradshaw: There can be no guarantee of remaining free of bovine TB. However farmers are encouraged to take all practical disease prevention measures to reduce the risk of disease introduction when bringing in new stock, including arranging a tuberculin test of purchased cattle before they are brought into to the resident herd.
The Department provides advice in the form of a freely available booklet "TB in Cattle—Reducing the Risk". A concise list of disease prevention measures which was developed with livestock industry representatives and vets, was sent to all livestock farmers in 2002; it can be found on the Defra website.
The comparative tuberculin skin test is used to certify that cattle herds are free from bovine tuberculosis, the comparative skin test at the standard interpretation, provides sensitivity in the range 68 per cent. to 95 per cent. and specificity in the range in the range 96 per cent. to 99 per cent.
Clearly a negative test result on individual animals brought into a herd will not guarantee their freedom from disease, although it will substantially reduce the risk. A recent clear herd test result for the herd of origin will reduce the risk that imported animals have been exposed to infection still further.
28 Jan 2004: Column 382W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the consultation on the new TB strategy will commence; and whether she expects that the detailed results and conclusions from the Krebs trials will be available prior to that consultation. [150497]
Mr. Bradshaw: We aim to publish a consultation document "Preparing for a new GB Strategy on bovine tuberculosis" in February. The document will represent the outcome of the first stage of the review announced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at last year's NFU Annual General
28 Jan 2004 : Column 383W
Meeting. The consultation document will contain proposals for action in the short term including measures to prevent the geographical spread of the disease.
The Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB (ISG) anticipates that the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (or the 'Krebs Trial') operations will be complete by 2006. The ISG will report to Ministers thereafter.
28 Jan 2004: Column 383W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the total expenditure by her Department on investigating the pathogenesis and epidemiology of Bovine TB since 1997; and what the planned expenditure is over the next five years. [150498]
Mr. Bradshaw: Total expenditure since 1997 on research projects investigating the pathogenesis and epidemiology of Bovine TB is £17.3 million. Research already commissioned for 2004–5 onwards totals £5.6 million and consultations for research requirements to start from the financial year 05–06 have been initiated. Epidemiology and pathogenesis will continue to be important parts of the bovine TB research programme.
28 Jan 2004: Column 383W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to compensate herd owners for uninsurable losses arising from the event of a TB herd breakdown. [150501]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Government currently pays compensation to farmers for the market value of all cattle slaughtered under the TB control programme. There are no plans to compensate for consequential losses.
28 Jan 2004: Column 383W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what inference she has drawn from the number of slaughterhouse cases of bovine TB as to the efficacy of the TB surveillance programme. [150503]
Mr. Bradshaw: The examination of carcases in the slaughterhouse complements surveillance through the periodic testing of cattle. Identification of infected carcases in slaughterhouses does not necessarily reflect a failure of the tuberculin test to detect the infection: given that infected cattle can develop grossly visible lesions within a relatively short time after infection with Mycobacterium bovis, it would be expected that some animals will become infected and be presented for slaughter in the intervals between herd tests, which can last up to four years. In recent years, the proportion of TB incidents that are detected in the slaughterhouse is lower in parishes where herds are tested more frequently, in other words frequent tuberculin testing reduces the risk that diseased cattle are disclosed during slaughterhouse inspection.
28 Jan 2004: Column 383W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action is taken in respect of slaughterhouse cases of bovine TB to trace the animals back to the farm of origin; what proportion of these cases were traced back to source in the last five years; and how many herds identified as a result of such action were subsequently confirmed as TB breakdowns. [150504]
28 Jan 2004: Column 384W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has identified a statistically significant correlation between the distribution of TB infection in badgers and the distribution of TB in cattle. [150505]
Mr. Bradshaw: The report from the Independent Scientific Review Group, chaired by Sir John Krebs, which reported in 1997, concluded that there was "strong evidence for an association between TB in cattle and badgers". This relationship will be investigated further using data collected in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial, which is currently underway.
28 Jan 2004: Column 384W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where slaughterhouse cases of bovine TB are identified as having originated in animals which have transited through livestock markets immediately prior to despatch for slaughter; what measures are taken in those markets to contain the spread of disease; and what action is taken to trace possible contact animals consequently confirmed as TB breakdowns. [150506]
Mr. Bradshaw: The transmission of the causative organism, Mycobacterium bovis, between cattle requires in most cases for the animals to be in close proximity with each other. While there is a risk that the organism could be transmitted between cattle at a market, conditions are such that this is a relatively low risk. Thus tracings of cattle that have come into contact with infected animals do not take into account contacts that take place in markets.
28 Jan 2004: Column 384W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what herd TB breakdowns have been recorded in the last 10 years in areas (a) where there have been no badgers detected and (b) following complete clearance of badgers. [150511]
Mr. Bradshaw: There is insufficient reliable data on the extent and varying density of the badger population of Great Britain to identify, with any certainty, areas where there is an absence of badgers. No area, in the last 10 years, has been completely cleared of badgers.
28 Jan 2004: Column 384W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what causation models, or combinations thereof, are being used by her Department to determine the cause of bovine TB and
28 Jan 2004: Column 385W
mechanisms of transmission; what the specific criteria are which make up the models; and which criteria remain to be satisfied before a firm association can be made between the presence of infection in the badger population and the presence of the disease in cattle. [150517]
28 Jan 2004: Column 385W
Mr. Bradshaw: To help to determine the cause of bovine TB and mechanisms of transmission, the Department has investigated spatially explicit GIS-based stochastic simulation badger/TB models. The models are complex and are described in detail in a range of scientific publications available from the Central Science Laboratory. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial is seeking to address the question of the contribution of the presence of infection in badgers to the presence of the disease in cattle, and results will be available in due course.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with regard to the TB control operation in Thornbury, what the level was of cattle TB in the trial area prior to the removal of badgers; how many times, by what methods, and how thoroughly the removal was effected; whether these operations led to an elimination of badgers; how soon after the completion of operations badgers re-colonised the area; and at what level the re-colonisation was noted. [150572]
Mr. Bradshaw: The incidence of herds with visible lesion reactors in the Thornbury intervention area, prior to badger clearance starting, was 74 in 1,314 herd years or 5.6 per cent. No reliable record exists of the number of gassing operations, but the Zuckerman Report refers to gassing starting in December 1975 and continuing to August 1976. Many setts were re-colonised immediately and "a considerable amount of re-gassing was necessary". The gas used in Thornbury was hydrogen cyanide and the badger activity was reduced to a "low level by 1979–80" (Zuckerman Report). The badger population at Thornbury took about 10 years to recover once action to prevent re-colonisation ceased.
28 Jan 2004: Column 385W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with regard to the TB control operation in Thornbury, for how long after the completion of operations cattle remained clear of TB, as assessed by use of cattle tuberculin tests. [150573]
Mr. Bradshaw: No confirmed cases of tuberculosis in cattle in the area of the Thornbury operation were disclosed by the tuberculin test in the 10-year period following the cessation of gassing.
28 Jan 2004: Column 385W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2003, Official Report, column 525W, when she expects to be able to release details of the content and funding of the future TB research programme, with specific reference to the funding of vaccine research. [150588]
Mr. Bradshaw: Future funding of the TB research programme, in common with all Government expenditure, will be considered as part of the 2004 Spending Review, which is under way and will be finalised later in the year.
28 Jan 2004: Column 386W
Future TB research requirements, including those for vaccine research, will be announced in May or June with the publication of the Animal Health and Welfare Research Requirements Document (RRD). Details of bovine TB research work currently being funded by Defra can be found on the Defra website.
28 Jan 2004: Column 386W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 216W, what criteria have to be satisfied by (a) farmers and (b) livestock hauliers in order to gain multiple pick-up approval; who is responsible for granting approval; and what costs are involved in granting approval. [150595]
Mr. Bradshaw: All multiple pick-ups and drop-offs must take place at premises that have prior approval from Defra to operate as a multiple pick-up/drop-off site. The conditions under which multiple pick-ups and drop-offs may take place are set out in Annex B of the General Licences for cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. These licences can be found on the Defra website.
Inspectors or local veterinary inspectors are at Defra's expense. An inspection is carried out to ensure that the requirements of the licences can be met. The inspection is carried out either by animal health officers, veterinary officers, temporary veterinary inspectors or local veterinary inspectors and is at Defra's expense.
28 Jan 2004: Column 386W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further estimate she has made of the increase in bovine TB following the discontinuance of reactive culling. [150625]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISO) has indicated that it will continue to analyse data from the treatment areas randomised as reactive areas as part of its regular interim analyses. The next such analysis, using data to March 2004, is expected to take place in April.
28 Jan 2004: Column 386W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 December 2003, Official Report, column 523W, on badgers, how many individual clearance operations in the Krebs areas were specifically related to individual farms; how many such operations covered more than one farm; and what difference there was in the TB incidence in cattle on farms which were part of an operation covering more than one farm as compared with those which were subject to an operation covering only one farm. [150775]
Mr. Bradshaw: Management records indicate that 78 reactive operations were carried out under the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and these involved 172 notified, infected premises. Of these operations, 37 related to a single infected premise. The extent of TB incidence was not a factor considered when grouping geographically proximal breakdown premises for reactive culling operations.
28 Jan 2004: Column 386W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Department's responses to Professor Zuckerman's recommendations on protecting badgers and cattle from TB. [150858]
28 Jan 2004: Column 387W
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department's responses to Professor Zuckerman's recommendations are summarised in Appendix 1 of Professor Dunnet's report to the Department in 1986 entitled "Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis—Review of Policy". A copy of the report is available in the House of Commons Library.
28 Jan 2004: Column 387W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the (a) proactive and (b) reactive and (c) control areas of the Krebs trials underwent boundary changes after initial designation of the areas; and when these changes occurred. [150894]
Mr. Bradshaw: All trial areas were modified marginally to include or exclude whole farm premises following surveying and prior to initial proactive culling. On occasions, slight changes in treatment boundary have been agreed by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB in response to changes observed in badger activity and social group organisation.
28 Jan 2004: Column 387W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department have established a field scale experiment to model postulated modes of transmission of bovine TB between badgers and cattle to test hypotheses relating to the spread mechanisms of the disease using live or attenuated TB bacilli, or indicator organisms which mimic the behaviour of the TB bacilli. [150943]
Mr. Bradshaw: Defra has not established a trial of this nature. Epidemiological surveys are being undertaken which will provide information on risk factors associated with the occurrence of disease outbreaks.
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
27 Jan 2004: Column 245W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what liaison takes place between English Nature and her Department in relation to the potential disease status of badgers targeted for removal and relocation. [150580]
Mr. Bradshaw: I refer the hon. Member to the answer on 6 January 2004, Official Report, column 249W, and on 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1186W.
The Department's Veterinary Endemic Diseases and Zoonoses Division (VEDZD) advise the badger licensing authorities in Defra's Rural Development Service and in English Nature, on potential bovine tuberculosis disease transmission risks associated with badger relocations. No licence is issued without first seeking advice from VEDZD.
27 Jan 2004: Column 246W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the status is of (a) the Independent Science Group and (b) the TB Forum in relation to the control of TB; what requirement there is for her to (i) abide by and (ii) consider the advice of these organisations; and whether these organisations can veto proposals made by her Department. [150543]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB is an advisory NDPB. Its primary objective is to oversee the design and analysis of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. Its complete Terms of Reference can be accessed on the Defra website.
The TB Forum aims to bring together experts and organisations with an interest in the Government's policy on bovine TB, to consider new measures which might be taken to control the disease in cattle.
Ministers consider carefully the advice of these bodies in formulating policy. However, there is no requirement for Ministers or the Department to abide by their advice, nor do these bodies have any formal power to veto departmental proposals.
27 Jan 2004: Column 246W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report,
27 Jan 2004: Column 247W
column 217W, how many closed herds where disease prevention measures have been judged by her officials to be adequate have suffered TB breakdowns in the last 10 years. [150551]
Mr. Bradshaw: Defra does not keep a record of which herds are closed and definitions of a 'closed' herd vary. Defra keeps a record of cattle births and deaths, and their movements from known locations in England, Scotland and Wales. Were a 'closed' herd to be very strictly defined, it would be possible to identify closed herds from records of holdings that only register births and deaths, but have no animal movements on. However, this could be done only at disproportionate cost.
A survey of TB breakdowns (known as 'TB99') is under way and is designed to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks.
27 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 15 December, Official Report, columns 629–30W, on bovine TB, if she will take steps to compensate herd owners for uninsurable consequential losses arising from the TB infection, where there is clear evidence of no culpability. [150846]
Mr. Bradshaw: There are no plans to compensate farmers for consequential losses after a TB breakdown.
27 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
27 Jan 2004: Column 248W
has been made of the relationship between the size of the bumble bee population and the size of the badger population in England. [150942]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are known to excavate and eat the nests of bumble bees and have the potential to exert an influence on the abundance of the bees locally.
The Department has not commissioned any studies to assess the relationship between the abundance of badgers and bumble bees, nor are we aware of any research specifically examining this topic.
27 Jan 2004: Column 254W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the permitted methods are for killing (a) moles and (b) rabbits in their runs and burrows. [150574]
27 Jan 2004: Column 255W
Mr. Bradshaw: The information requested is as follows.
(a) Moles
The permitted methods typically used to kill moles in their runs are:
Poisoning using worm baits impregnated with strychnine hydrochloride. This can only be used under a specific authority obtained from Defra.
Poisoning with an approved fumigant (aluminium phosphide)
Trapping. There are there are two main types in common use, the scissor (pincer) trap or metal half-barrel trap (Duffus).
Certain other methods are permitted (for example shooting and live capture traps), but these are not widely used in the UK. Further details and advice on the range of available options for managing mole problems are given in the Defra leaflet WM03 "Moles" which is available online at: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/leaflets.htm.
Guidance on how to apply for permission to use strychnine hydrochloride for mole control is available online at: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/mole.htm.
(b) Rabbits
The permitted methods typically used for killing rabbits in their burrows are:
Poisoning with an approved fumigant (aluminium phosphide or hydrogen cyanide)
Trapping. Traps currently approved by the Spring Traps Approval Order 1995 are the Imbra Trap Mark I and Mark II, Juby Trap, Fenn Rabbit Trap Mark I, Fenn Vermin Trap Mark VI (Multi Purpose), Springer Mark VI (Dual Purpose), Victor Conibear 120–2 and the BMI Magnum 116.
Further details and advice on the range of available options for managing rabbit problems are given in the following Defra leaflets WM01, WM16 and WM17 and in Forestry Commission leaflet FCPN002, which are available online at:
www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/leaflets.htm.
A full list of approved traps and the relevant conditions of use can be found online at: www.defra. gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/approved-traps. htm
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what liaison takes place between English Nature and her Department in relation to the potential disease status of badgers targeted for removal and relocation. [150580]
Mr. Bradshaw: I refer the hon. Member to the answer on 6 January 2004, Official Report, column 249W, and on 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1186W.
The Department's Veterinary Endemic Diseases and Zoonoses Division (VEDZD) advise the badger licensing authorities in Defra's Rural Development Service and in English Nature, on potential bovine tuberculosis disease transmission risks associated with badger relocations. No licence is issued without first seeking advice from VEDZD.
27 Jan 2004: Column 246W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the status is of (a) the Independent Science Group and (b) the TB Forum in relation to the control of TB; what requirement there is for her to (i) abide by and (ii) consider the advice of these organisations; and whether these organisations can veto proposals made by her Department. [150543]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB is an advisory NDPB. Its primary objective is to oversee the design and analysis of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial. Its complete Terms of Reference can be accessed on the Defra website.
The TB Forum aims to bring together experts and organisations with an interest in the Government's policy on bovine TB, to consider new measures which might be taken to control the disease in cattle.
Ministers consider carefully the advice of these bodies in formulating policy. However, there is no requirement for Ministers or the Department to abide by their advice, nor do these bodies have any formal power to veto departmental proposals.
27 Jan 2004: Column 246W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 8 December 2003, Official Report,
27 Jan 2004: Column 247W
column 217W, how many closed herds where disease prevention measures have been judged by her officials to be adequate have suffered TB breakdowns in the last 10 years. [150551]
Mr. Bradshaw: Defra does not keep a record of which herds are closed and definitions of a 'closed' herd vary. Defra keeps a record of cattle births and deaths, and their movements from known locations in England, Scotland and Wales. Were a 'closed' herd to be very strictly defined, it would be possible to identify closed herds from records of holdings that only register births and deaths, but have no animal movements on. However, this could be done only at disproportionate cost.
A survey of TB breakdowns (known as 'TB99') is under way and is designed to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks.
27 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 15 December, Official Report, columns 629–30W, on bovine TB, if she will take steps to compensate herd owners for uninsurable consequential losses arising from the TB infection, where there is clear evidence of no culpability. [150846]
Mr. Bradshaw: There are no plans to compensate farmers for consequential losses after a TB breakdown.
27 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment
27 Jan 2004: Column 248W
has been made of the relationship between the size of the bumble bee population and the size of the badger population in England. [150942]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are known to excavate and eat the nests of bumble bees and have the potential to exert an influence on the abundance of the bees locally.
The Department has not commissioned any studies to assess the relationship between the abundance of badgers and bumble bees, nor are we aware of any research specifically examining this topic.
27 Jan 2004: Column 254W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the permitted methods are for killing (a) moles and (b) rabbits in their runs and burrows. [150574]
27 Jan 2004: Column 255W
Mr. Bradshaw: The information requested is as follows.
(a) Moles
The permitted methods typically used to kill moles in their runs are:
Poisoning using worm baits impregnated with strychnine hydrochloride. This can only be used under a specific authority obtained from Defra.
Poisoning with an approved fumigant (aluminium phosphide)
Trapping. There are there are two main types in common use, the scissor (pincer) trap or metal half-barrel trap (Duffus).
Certain other methods are permitted (for example shooting and live capture traps), but these are not widely used in the UK. Further details and advice on the range of available options for managing mole problems are given in the Defra leaflet WM03 "Moles" which is available online at: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/leaflets.htm.
Guidance on how to apply for permission to use strychnine hydrochloride for mole control is available online at: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/mole.htm.
(b) Rabbits
The permitted methods typically used for killing rabbits in their burrows are:
Poisoning with an approved fumigant (aluminium phosphide or hydrogen cyanide)
Trapping. Traps currently approved by the Spring Traps Approval Order 1995 are the Imbra Trap Mark I and Mark II, Juby Trap, Fenn Rabbit Trap Mark I, Fenn Vermin Trap Mark VI (Multi Purpose), Springer Mark VI (Dual Purpose), Victor Conibear 120–2 and the BMI Magnum 116.
Further details and advice on the range of available options for managing rabbit problems are given in the following Defra leaflets WM01, WM16 and WM17 and in Forestry Commission leaflet FCPN002, which are available online at:
www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/leaflets.htm.
A full list of approved traps and the relevant conditions of use can be found online at: www.defra. gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/approved-traps. htm
Monday, January 26, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
26 Jan 2004: Column 1W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the total population of badgers in the UK; and in which areas the population is greatest. [148650]
Mr. Bradshaw: English Nature advises that there are likely to be in the region of 300,000 to 400,000 badgers in Great Britain. This figure is derived from a National Badger Survey which took place in the mid-1990's.
The survey also reported that there had been a 77 per cent. increase in badger numbers between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. The increasing number of applications received by Defra for licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (up 50 per cent. since 1999) suggest that this trend is continuing.
Badgers densities are highest in the south-west of England, with high densities present throughout southern counties, the west midlands and Wales.
The Department has been funding the Winter Mammal Monitoring Project which is being carried out by the Mammal Society and the British Trust for Ornithology. This is a pilot study intended to develop a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring system. The project is still at the pilot stage—but is intended in the future to provide valuable data on the abundance of mammal species, including badgers. Early findings confirm the pattern of distribution report in the National Badger Survey.
Full details of the badger survey findings are published in: "Changes in the British badger population, 1988 to 1997" by G. Wilson, S. Harris and G. McLaren (1997), published by the People's Trust for Endangered Species (ISBN 1 85580 018 7).
Results from the Winter Mammal Monitoring Project are available online at: http://www.bto.org/survey/special/mammal results.htm
26 Jan 2004: Column 2W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether wild deer are responsible for the spread of TB to cattle. [148655]
Mr. Bradshaw: In Great Britain, there is very limited evidence that deer have been responsible for transmitting tuberculosis to cattle. Wild deer in GB have generally been considered a sentinel or 'spill-over' host of infection in cattle and other wildlife, rather than the cause of it. Whether any wild deer populations (of any species) may constitute a reservoir of TB will depend upon the prevalence of TB, density and ecology of the hosts and the pathology that TB shows in those species.
Defra has funded a survey of wildlife in the Southwest of England by the Central Science Laboratory. The first phase established whether Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis—the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) was present in a number of wild mammal species, including deer. M. bovis has been confirmed in five of the six established wild and feral species of deer in GB. The second phase of the survey (due to end March 2004) is to estimate prevalence of M. bovis in those species where it is found, by carrying out a more targeted and extensive sampling.
26 Jan 2004: Column 3W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the incidence of TB in cattle by 2008 if current measures are continued and there is no increase in activity by her Department; and what her projections are for costs of compensation for slaughter of cattle reactors in that period. [148657]
Mr. Bradshaw: Our latest assessment shows that bovine TB restrictions affected 5 per cent. of cattle herds (5,181 herds) in Great Britain at some point between January and November 2003. At any one point in time there are about 3 per cent. of herds under restriction.
The average annual increase in the number of animals slaughtered as a result of TB control measures between 1990 and 2001 was 20 per cent. It is too early to say whether this long-term trend has been altered by the interruption of the testing programme due to Foot and Mouth disease in 2001, and the priority testing of high-risk herds once the programme resumed.
In 2002/03 we paid out £31.1 million in TB compensation. With no new changes in policy, or disease dynamics, we could theoretically expect a 20 per cent. year on year increase in the compensation bill.
However, the TB programme will not remain static over the next four years. We recently consulted on proposals to rationalise compensation arrangements for all notifiable diseases including bovine TB and we will shortly be consulting on proposals for a new TB strategy and options for controlling the geographical spread of the disease in the short term. The key challenge for Government and the farming industry will be to work together to reduce the overall economic impact of bovine TB.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the total population of badgers in the UK; and in which areas the population is greatest. [148650]
Mr. Bradshaw: English Nature advises that there are likely to be in the region of 300,000 to 400,000 badgers in Great Britain. This figure is derived from a National Badger Survey which took place in the mid-1990's.
The survey also reported that there had been a 77 per cent. increase in badger numbers between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. The increasing number of applications received by Defra for licences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (up 50 per cent. since 1999) suggest that this trend is continuing.
Badgers densities are highest in the south-west of England, with high densities present throughout southern counties, the west midlands and Wales.
The Department has been funding the Winter Mammal Monitoring Project which is being carried out by the Mammal Society and the British Trust for Ornithology. This is a pilot study intended to develop a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring system. The project is still at the pilot stage—but is intended in the future to provide valuable data on the abundance of mammal species, including badgers. Early findings confirm the pattern of distribution report in the National Badger Survey.
Full details of the badger survey findings are published in: "Changes in the British badger population, 1988 to 1997" by G. Wilson, S. Harris and G. McLaren (1997), published by the People's Trust for Endangered Species (ISBN 1 85580 018 7).
Results from the Winter Mammal Monitoring Project are available online at: http://www.bto.org/survey/special/mammal results.htm
26 Jan 2004: Column 2W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether wild deer are responsible for the spread of TB to cattle. [148655]
Mr. Bradshaw: In Great Britain, there is very limited evidence that deer have been responsible for transmitting tuberculosis to cattle. Wild deer in GB have generally been considered a sentinel or 'spill-over' host of infection in cattle and other wildlife, rather than the cause of it. Whether any wild deer populations (of any species) may constitute a reservoir of TB will depend upon the prevalence of TB, density and ecology of the hosts and the pathology that TB shows in those species.
Defra has funded a survey of wildlife in the Southwest of England by the Central Science Laboratory. The first phase established whether Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis—the causative organism for bovine tuberculosis) was present in a number of wild mammal species, including deer. M. bovis has been confirmed in five of the six established wild and feral species of deer in GB. The second phase of the survey (due to end March 2004) is to estimate prevalence of M. bovis in those species where it is found, by carrying out a more targeted and extensive sampling.
26 Jan 2004: Column 3W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the incidence of TB in cattle by 2008 if current measures are continued and there is no increase in activity by her Department; and what her projections are for costs of compensation for slaughter of cattle reactors in that period. [148657]
Mr. Bradshaw: Our latest assessment shows that bovine TB restrictions affected 5 per cent. of cattle herds (5,181 herds) in Great Britain at some point between January and November 2003. At any one point in time there are about 3 per cent. of herds under restriction.
The average annual increase in the number of animals slaughtered as a result of TB control measures between 1990 and 2001 was 20 per cent. It is too early to say whether this long-term trend has been altered by the interruption of the testing programme due to Foot and Mouth disease in 2001, and the priority testing of high-risk herds once the programme resumed.
In 2002/03 we paid out £31.1 million in TB compensation. With no new changes in policy, or disease dynamics, we could theoretically expect a 20 per cent. year on year increase in the compensation bill.
However, the TB programme will not remain static over the next four years. We recently consulted on proposals to rationalise compensation arrangements for all notifiable diseases including bovine TB and we will shortly be consulting on proposals for a new TB strategy and options for controlling the geographical spread of the disease in the short term. The key challenge for Government and the farming industry will be to work together to reduce the overall economic impact of bovine TB.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
22 Jan 2004: Column 1365W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has evaluated in which badgers have been systematically removed from an area, and the area kept free of badgers, where the incidence of TB in cattle has declined; and what conclusions she drew from this work. [148660]
Mr. Bradshaw: Four large-scale badger clearances have been carried out, at Thornbury in Avon (104 sq km), at Steeple Leaze in Dorset (12 sq km), at Hartland in North Devon (about 62 sq km) and in an area of East Offaly in the Irish Republic (738 sq km). All four clearances were followed by a reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle.
However, none of the previous TB control strategies that involved badger culling have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy. While removal operations may have had an effect on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns,
22 Jan 2004: Column 1366W
other factors may also have influenced these. In the absence of scientific controls, it is not possible to separate out the effects of badger removal from these confounding factors.
A complete assessment of previous TB control strategies can be found in the 1997 Report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers by Professor John Krebs and the Independent Scientific Review Group (the "Krebs Report"), available in the House Library.
22 Jan 2004: Column 1366W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the resources necessary to ensure that a given area is cleared and kept free of badgers, with particular reference to (a) number of visits and (b) personnel employed; [148651]
(2) what (a) financial and (b) human resources are allocated to the (i) clearance of badgers and (ii) the maintenance of badger-free areas in the Krebs proactive areas. [148659]
Mr. Bradshaw: As part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), ten areas are subject to "proactive" treatment. As many badgers as possible within the design of the trial are culled in these areas (each approximately 100 sq km) and badger numbers are kept as low as possible. After the initial cull, the work involves an annual re-survey and cull of all proactive areas. However, the human resources for "proactive" work cannot be separately identified, except at disproportionate cost.
Information on the costs of trapping as a "proactive" culling method in the RBCT cannot be used to assess the resources required to clear an area of badgers, because this would require the use of snares, poisoning or gassing which have been ruled out by the Government on welfare grounds. The RBCT clears as many badgers as possible from proactive areas using cage traps, but this removes, at best, 80 per cent. of badgers.
The average number of field staff employed by the Veterinary Directorate Wildlife Unit for field operations in the RBCT and the associated costs by financial year are given in the following table:
WLU Field Staff and Costs
Year Number of Field Staff Total cost of Wildlife Unit(£ million)
1998–1999 62 2.9
1999–2000 90 4.2
2000–2001 110 5.5
2001–2002 136 5.5
2002–2003 127 5.6
2003–2004(1) 133 6.8
(1) projected
For most of 2001, field staff were reassigned to dealing with the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak. Over the first three years of the Trial, contracts to carry out initial Triplet surveying were negotiated with the Central Science Laboratory and ADAS and additionally small numbers of staff were deployed from elsewhere in the Department to support major proactive cull operations. Badger culling, however, is always carried out by Wildlife Unit personnel.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has evaluated in which badgers have been systematically removed from an area, and the area kept free of badgers, where the incidence of TB in cattle has declined; and what conclusions she drew from this work. [148660]
Mr. Bradshaw: Four large-scale badger clearances have been carried out, at Thornbury in Avon (104 sq km), at Steeple Leaze in Dorset (12 sq km), at Hartland in North Devon (about 62 sq km) and in an area of East Offaly in the Irish Republic (738 sq km). All four clearances were followed by a reduction in the incidence of TB in cattle.
However, none of the previous TB control strategies that involved badger culling have been assessed in a properly designed experiment to establish their efficacy. While removal operations may have had an effect on the prevalence of TB in badgers and on herd breakdowns,
22 Jan 2004: Column 1366W
other factors may also have influenced these. In the absence of scientific controls, it is not possible to separate out the effects of badger removal from these confounding factors.
A complete assessment of previous TB control strategies can be found in the 1997 Report on Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers by Professor John Krebs and the Independent Scientific Review Group (the "Krebs Report"), available in the House Library.
22 Jan 2004: Column 1366W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the resources necessary to ensure that a given area is cleared and kept free of badgers, with particular reference to (a) number of visits and (b) personnel employed; [148651]
(2) what (a) financial and (b) human resources are allocated to the (i) clearance of badgers and (ii) the maintenance of badger-free areas in the Krebs proactive areas. [148659]
Mr. Bradshaw: As part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), ten areas are subject to "proactive" treatment. As many badgers as possible within the design of the trial are culled in these areas (each approximately 100 sq km) and badger numbers are kept as low as possible. After the initial cull, the work involves an annual re-survey and cull of all proactive areas. However, the human resources for "proactive" work cannot be separately identified, except at disproportionate cost.
Information on the costs of trapping as a "proactive" culling method in the RBCT cannot be used to assess the resources required to clear an area of badgers, because this would require the use of snares, poisoning or gassing which have been ruled out by the Government on welfare grounds. The RBCT clears as many badgers as possible from proactive areas using cage traps, but this removes, at best, 80 per cent. of badgers.
The average number of field staff employed by the Veterinary Directorate Wildlife Unit for field operations in the RBCT and the associated costs by financial year are given in the following table:
WLU Field Staff and Costs
Year Number of Field Staff Total cost of Wildlife Unit(£ million)
1998–1999 62 2.9
1999–2000 90 4.2
2000–2001 110 5.5
2001–2002 136 5.5
2002–2003 127 5.6
2003–2004(1) 133 6.8
(1) projected
For most of 2001, field staff were reassigned to dealing with the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak. Over the first three years of the Trial, contracts to carry out initial Triplet surveying were negotiated with the Central Science Laboratory and ADAS and additionally small numbers of staff were deployed from elsewhere in the Department to support major proactive cull operations. Badger culling, however, is always carried out by Wildlife Unit personnel.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
20 Jan 2004: Column 1185W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who owns the traps and other equipment used for badger trapping exercises carried out on behalf of the Department. [148653]
Mr. Bradshaw: The traps and other equipment used in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial are owned by Defra.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1185W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the administrative boundaries of the Krebs proactive areas necessarily coincide with the areas inhabited by badgers. [148658]
Mr. Bradshaw: The boundaries of treatment areas in which badger culling would take place were only prescribed once putative badger social group territories had been delineated. Any sett outside a trial area boundary which was associated with a social group of badgers whose territory fell within the trial area would be subject to the same treatment as the sett within the trial area (proactive or reactive culling) once allocated.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1185W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what tests have been carried out by the Department to determine
20 Jan 2004: Column 1186W
whether healthy badgers have acquired or are likely to acquire infection after colonising setts left vacant as a result of clearance of TB infected badgers. [148661]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is likely that the lack of light and relatively constant temperature and humidity inside a badger sett would favour the survival of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis). However, as there is currently no effective live test for TB in badgers, it would not be possible to tell if an incoming badger was healthy when colonising a vacant sett.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1186W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there are humane methods licensed for the stunning and slaughter of animals and poultry which rely on gases to render animals unconscious prior to their slaughter. [148652]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (as amended) lay down the permitted stunning and killing methods for both red meat animals and poultry. The permitted methods have been assessed for humaneness. The use of gas mixtures is a permitted method for rendering pigs, domestic fowls and turkeys unconscious. The use of gas mixtures is actually a stun-kill method, in that the animal or bird has to remain in the gas until it is dead.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1187W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which persons and organisations are permitted to slaughter badgers; what conditions are imposed on them; and under what circumstances badgers are allowed to be slaughtered. [148663]
Mr. Bradshaw: No persons or organisations are permitted to slaughter badgers.
Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to kill (or attempt to kill) a badger (Protection of Badgers Act 1992 s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000 (this applies to each badger killed).
There are certain specified exceptions to this offence under which badgers may be lawfully killed. These are summarised as follows.
Section 6—General exceptions
A person is not guilty of an offence:
where a seriously injured badger is killed or attempted to be killed as an act of mercy;
where a badger is unavoidably killed or injured as an incidental result of a lawful action; and
doing anything which is authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 eg experimental procedures approved under licence to advance biological or behavioural knowledge etc.
Section 7—"Farmer's defence"
A person is not guilty of an offence by reason of killing a badger if the action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or other form of property.
This defence cannot be relied upon if it was apparent before that time that action would prove necessary and a licence had not been applied for as soon as reasonably practicable, or where an application for such a licence had been determined.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1188W
Section 10—Licences
Licences may be granted to permit badgers to be killed for the following purposes:
scientific or educational purposes or the conservation of badgers;
preventing the spread of disease;
preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.
All licences are judged on their own merits and would be subject to compliance with conditions specified in the licence.
The exceptions, and any conditions that apply, are stated in full in the Act, which is available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office or online at: www. legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/Ukpga 19920051 en l.htm.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1188W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what circumstances badgers may be removed from setts; and what regulations govern such removals. [149221]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to remove (or attempt to remove) a badger from its sett, either forcibly (including the use of dogs) or by installing exclusion measures (such as one-way gates), or by obstructing access of a badger to its sett (Protection of Badgers Act 1992). A person guilty of any of these offences is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5000.
The legislation includes provisions for the granting of licences, which, where justified, could be used to permit the removal (by exclusion) of badgers from a sett. The purposes for which licences may be issued are summarised as follows:
Science, education or conservation of badgers
Zoological collections
Ringing or marking
Development
Archaeological preservation or investigation
Investigating offences
Preventing the spread of disease
Preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property
Agricultural or forestry operations
Drainage or sea defence
These purposes are described in full in the Act, which is available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office or online.
All licences are judged on their own merits and would be subject to compliance with conditions specified in the licence.
Controls relating to the removal of badgers from setts where the intention is to relocate the animals elsewhere—rather than simply denying access to a particular sett—are described in the joint response to parliamentary questions 0673 2003–04 and 0675 2003–04.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1189W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of TB in cattle that arises from cattle-to-cattle spread. [148654]
Mr. Bradshaw: No such estimate has been made. In many cases, it is not possible to ascribe the source of TB infection in cattle, as the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between environmental sources (including wildlife) and cattle, are not fully understood.
Part of the TB research programme includes investigation of the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. In addition, a survey is underway to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks. A preliminary analysis is set out in the Third Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who owns the traps and other equipment used for badger trapping exercises carried out on behalf of the Department. [148653]
Mr. Bradshaw: The traps and other equipment used in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial are owned by Defra.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1185W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the administrative boundaries of the Krebs proactive areas necessarily coincide with the areas inhabited by badgers. [148658]
Mr. Bradshaw: The boundaries of treatment areas in which badger culling would take place were only prescribed once putative badger social group territories had been delineated. Any sett outside a trial area boundary which was associated with a social group of badgers whose territory fell within the trial area would be subject to the same treatment as the sett within the trial area (proactive or reactive culling) once allocated.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1185W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what tests have been carried out by the Department to determine
20 Jan 2004: Column 1186W
whether healthy badgers have acquired or are likely to acquire infection after colonising setts left vacant as a result of clearance of TB infected badgers. [148661]
Mr. Bradshaw: It is likely that the lack of light and relatively constant temperature and humidity inside a badger sett would favour the survival of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative organism of bovine tuberculosis). However, as there is currently no effective live test for TB in badgers, it would not be possible to tell if an incoming badger was healthy when colonising a vacant sett.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1186W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there are humane methods licensed for the stunning and slaughter of animals and poultry which rely on gases to render animals unconscious prior to their slaughter. [148652]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (as amended) lay down the permitted stunning and killing methods for both red meat animals and poultry. The permitted methods have been assessed for humaneness. The use of gas mixtures is a permitted method for rendering pigs, domestic fowls and turkeys unconscious. The use of gas mixtures is actually a stun-kill method, in that the animal or bird has to remain in the gas until it is dead.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1187W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which persons and organisations are permitted to slaughter badgers; what conditions are imposed on them; and under what circumstances badgers are allowed to be slaughtered. [148663]
Mr. Bradshaw: No persons or organisations are permitted to slaughter badgers.
Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to kill (or attempt to kill) a badger (Protection of Badgers Act 1992 s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000 (this applies to each badger killed).
There are certain specified exceptions to this offence under which badgers may be lawfully killed. These are summarised as follows.
Section 6—General exceptions
A person is not guilty of an offence:
where a seriously injured badger is killed or attempted to be killed as an act of mercy;
where a badger is unavoidably killed or injured as an incidental result of a lawful action; and
doing anything which is authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 eg experimental procedures approved under licence to advance biological or behavioural knowledge etc.
Section 7—"Farmer's defence"
A person is not guilty of an offence by reason of killing a badger if the action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or other form of property.
This defence cannot be relied upon if it was apparent before that time that action would prove necessary and a licence had not been applied for as soon as reasonably practicable, or where an application for such a licence had been determined.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1188W
Section 10—Licences
Licences may be granted to permit badgers to be killed for the following purposes:
scientific or educational purposes or the conservation of badgers;
preventing the spread of disease;
preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.
All licences are judged on their own merits and would be subject to compliance with conditions specified in the licence.
The exceptions, and any conditions that apply, are stated in full in the Act, which is available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office or online at: www. legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/Ukpga 19920051 en l.htm.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1188W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what circumstances badgers may be removed from setts; and what regulations govern such removals. [149221]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to remove (or attempt to remove) a badger from its sett, either forcibly (including the use of dogs) or by installing exclusion measures (such as one-way gates), or by obstructing access of a badger to its sett (Protection of Badgers Act 1992). A person guilty of any of these offences is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5000.
The legislation includes provisions for the granting of licences, which, where justified, could be used to permit the removal (by exclusion) of badgers from a sett. The purposes for which licences may be issued are summarised as follows:
Science, education or conservation of badgers
Zoological collections
Ringing or marking
Development
Archaeological preservation or investigation
Investigating offences
Preventing the spread of disease
Preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property
Agricultural or forestry operations
Drainage or sea defence
These purposes are described in full in the Act, which is available from Her Majesty's Stationary Office or online.
All licences are judged on their own merits and would be subject to compliance with conditions specified in the licence.
Controls relating to the removal of badgers from setts where the intention is to relocate the animals elsewhere—rather than simply denying access to a particular sett—are described in the joint response to parliamentary questions 0673 2003–04 and 0675 2003–04.
20 Jan 2004: Column 1189W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of TB in cattle that arises from cattle-to-cattle spread. [148654]
Mr. Bradshaw: No such estimate has been made. In many cases, it is not possible to ascribe the source of TB infection in cattle, as the routes of transmission of Mycobacterium bovis (the causative agent for bovine tuberculosis) from cattle to cattle, and between environmental sources (including wildlife) and cattle, are not fully understood.
Part of the TB research programme includes investigation of the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle. In addition, a survey is underway to assess potential risk factors that may predispose herds to TB outbreaks. A preliminary analysis is set out in the Third Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB.
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
14 Jan 2004: Column 731W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there is scope within the new Animal Welfare Bill to cull out contiguous pockets of M. bovis infection in species other than badgers. [144589]
Mr. Bradshaw: No. The proposed Animal Welfare Bill will relate only to the welfare of captive and domestic animals. Wild animals in the wild are therefore outside the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there is scope within the new Animal Welfare Bill to cull out contiguous pockets of M. bovis infection in species other than badgers. [144589]
Mr. Bradshaw: No. The proposed Animal Welfare Bill will relate only to the welfare of captive and domestic animals. Wild animals in the wild are therefore outside the scope of the Bill.
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
7 Jan 2004: Column 359W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government plans to remove the protected status from badgers. [142462]
Mr. Bradshaw: No.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government plans to remove the protected status from badgers. [142462]
Mr. Bradshaw: No.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Parliamentary Questions
6 Jan 2004: Column 246W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long Mycobacterium bovis bacilli can survive on open pasture; and under what conditions. [141395]
6 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Bradshaw: Mycobacterium bovis may be present within a variety of media on open pasture, each influencing the survival of the bacilli. In cow manure M. bovis may survive for up to four months in autumn, five months in winter and two months in spring, dependent on concentration. Greater concentrations promote survival.
When exposed to sunlight at 24–34 degrees celsius M. bovis has survived for 5–11 months in manure at pasture. Survival in samples buried in 1cm deep pits has been up to one year and at 5cm deep up to two years.
M. bovis can be highly concentrated in badger urine and can survive for over a week on open pasture during the winter but very few bacilli survive after four weeks. During the summer survival can reduce to less than three days in badger urine.
M. bovis in badger bronchial pus and sputum can survive for up to 10 weeks on open pasture in winter but less than one week in summer. Survival in badger faeces can be for up to one month during the winter but less than two weeks in summer.
Survival may also be influenced by the presence of other microorganisms in the environment. Fungi, algae, protozoans and many other bacteria compete with M. bovis for nutrients, may have greater growth rates, and may produce natural antibiotics.
6 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many TB reactor cattle were reported to her Department and its predecessors, (a) in each year from 1990 to 2002 and (b) from 1 January to 31 October; how many were subject to culture testing; and how many proved TB positive on culture. [142468]
Mr. Bradshaw: Table 1 shows the number of TB reactors, how many were subject to culture for Mycobacterium bovis, and the number successfully cultured for the years 1990–2002 in Great Britain.
Table 2 gives provisional data for the number of TB reactors, the number subject to culture, and the number successfully cultured for Mycobacterium bovis in Great Britain for 2003 (till end of October).
Table 1 GB Figures Number of TB Reactors Number Subject To Culture Testing TB Positive on Culture
1990 719 4 (1)—
1991 1,050 4 (1)—
1992 1,086 (1)— (1)—
1993 1,814 2 (1)—
1994 2,248 515 238
1995 2,861 2,492 1,051
1996 3,296 2,852 1,163
1997 3,358 3,005 1,196
1998 5,063 4,121 1,645
1999 6,047 4,894 2,033
2000 7,143 5,456 2,550
2001 5,472 3,818 1,447
2002 20,053 14,102 2,557
(1)— Data not available
6 Jan 2004: Column 248W
Table 2 2003 GB Figures (provisional) January to October 2003
Number of TB Reactors 17,589
Number Subject To Culture 12,228
TB Positive on Culture 2,681
6 Jan 2004: Column 248W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of whether badgers infected by TB may excrete urine from which viable M. bovis bacilli may be isolated; what the typical quantities per millilitre are; and whether such levels are capable of causing infection in cattle through (a) contamination of feed and (b) other mechanisms. [144445]
Mr. Bradshaw: Some badgers develop TB infection in the kidneys 37 per cent. of infected badgers sampled post mortem between 1971 and 1978 m. bovis was isolated from the kidneys and may excrete M. bovis bacilli in urine. Urine is typically left in trails up to a metre or more in length and may be focussed at a latrine or distributed more randomly as the badger forages. Concentrations of up to 300,000 bacilli per ml of badger urine have been reported and experimental nasal inoculation of cattle suggests that, at this concentration of viable microbes, less than 0.03 ml would need to be inhaled by cattle in order to promote slow infection.
Investigations into infection of cattle from feed and other sources contaminated with infected badger urine are lacking. However, risk of infection to cattle by infected badger urine on cattle feed would be a function of the survival of the microbe in the feed (which is dependent on, for example, duration since excretion, moisture content of the environment, exposure to UV rays) the number of microbes consumed by the cattle and the method of consumption (i.e. ingestion or inhalation). I am unaware of measurements of M. bovis survival in cattle feed but the environment inside farm buildings is generally considered to be conducive to longer periods of survival than at pasture, where M. bovis in badger urine has survived for three days in summer and 28 days in winter.
Cattle appear less able to detect badger urine than faeces at pasture away from latrines. In addition, patches contaminated with urine detected by cattle appear to be sniffed more than those contaminated with faeces. Furthermore, some cattle do not select against latrines and freely graze over them. Therefore, potential sources of risk of cattle contact with infected badger urine include the ingestion of contaminated feed from feed stores or in troughs; investigation/grazing at and around latrines; and the investigation/grazing of contaminated pasture.
6 Jan 2004 : Column 249W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls there are on the movement of wild badgers, for relocation elsewhere, with particular reference to Krebs trapping areas. [144446]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to take (or attempt to take) a badger from the wild, including for the purpose of relocation elsewhere (Protection of Badgers Act 1992, s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
There are certain exceptions to this offence, two of which are specifically relevant to the issue of relocating badgers. These are the treatment of injured or sick badgers, and relocations licensed by the appropriate statutory conservation agency or agricultural department (English Nature and Defra, respectively, in England).
Under section 6, a person is not guilty of an offence by reason only of:
"(a) taking or attempting to take a badger which has been disabled otherwise than by this act and is taken or to be taken solely for the purpose of tending it".
As a native species, there are no specific restrictions under current law regulating where badgers are released once they have recovered. Normally, once fit enough to be released into the wild, the badger will be returned to the location where it was originally found. This approach is recommended on welfare grounds due to their territorial nature, and also to avoid any risk of transmitting disease. However, there are situations in which this course of action may not be feasible (particularly in the case of orphaned cubs).
There is a voluntary code of practice covering the rehabilitation and release of badgers, and this has a precautionary approach aimed at minimising the risk of transmitting bovine tuberculosis (TB). All badgers to be relocated are tested for TB three times. Only animals testing negative to all three tests are released and any animal testing positive is euthanased. The code also requires that all released badgers are permanently marked (by a tattoo or microchip) and registered. The code is available via the internet at: http://www. badger.org.uk/action/badger-rehabilitation-protocol-contents.html
6 Jan 2004 : Column 250W
Under section 10 of the Act, licences may be issued to permit badgers to be taken from the wild (and relocated if necessary) for a limited range of specified purposes, including scientific investigation, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing serious damage to property.
Relocating badgers is only permitted where there is considered to be a very low risk of transmitting TB, and before any badgers are released at a new location all animals are tested three times for the disease. All badgers testing positive to any of the three tests, or in contact with a badger testing positive, are euthanased.
Badgers are not relocated as part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (the so-called Kreb's trial), and the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB have advised that are no special arrangements relating to the relocation of badgers in trial areas.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for post movement testing of cattle for exposure to M. bovis; and what assessment she has made of the implications of such testing (a) within four months of movement and (b) by the date of the next due test of the herd from which the animal came. [144436]
Mr. Bradshaw: All farmers have been sent a leaflet "Golden rules for a healthy herd", which advises purchasers to check the disease status of cattle prior to purchase and to consider arranging a private TB test for their herd.
In February 2003, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a review of our bovine tuberculosis strategy. Early in the new year we will be publishing a consultation document which will represent the outcome of the first stage of that review. The consultation document will include proposals for short term measures for reducing the risk of geographic spread of bovine TB from high to low incidence areas, including consideration of proposals for the pre and/or post movement testing of cattle.
When considering post-movement testing of cattle sold from farm to farm, we have envisaged that, as a general rule, such tests would be administered between 60 and 120 days after movement (i.e. 2–4 months post movement). This is to ensure that a minimum of 60 days have elapsed since the last test and since any potential exposure to M. bovis on the premises of origin, to avoid problems of de-sensitisation caused by recent testing and to allow for the normal delay in the development of a response to the skin test. Knowledge of whether a pre-movement test had taken place and when, would allow the post movement test to be better targeted.
Assuming post-movement testing is carried out as outlined, the date of the next due test of the herd of origin need not be considered.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the recognised minimum time required is from exposure of cattle to M. bovis to an immune response which will show in the skin test used by her Department. [144437]
6 Jan 2004: Column 251W
Mr. Bradshaw: The immune response elicited by Mycobacterium bovis in cattle takes several weeks to develop to a stage where it is detectable. For the single intradermal comparative test used in the UK and Ireland, this period of "unresponsiveness" or latency varies between 30 and 50 days.
To allow for random and natural variation in the latency period of individual animals, the legislation requires repeat testing to be carried out at intervals of at least 60 days from the date of the removal (or isolation) of all the reactors identified at the previous skin test.
6 Jan 2004: Column 251W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what significant variations in incubation period have been observed in herd breakdowns involving several cattle reactors resulting from infection with M.bovis. [144439]
Mr. Bradshaw: Many factors influence the progression of Mycobacterium bovis, infection into detectable disease, including the strain of the bacterium, size of bacterial challenge and route of infection. Other factors include affected animal (species, breed, genotype, age) or the effects of its environment (nutritional status, stress, other infections and environmental bacteria).
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many strains of M.bovis have been found in (a) cattle and (b) badgers in the UK; and what assessment has been made of the virulence of each strain. [144440]
Mr. Bradshaw: M. bovis isolates are routinely typed using a DNA fingerprinting technique called spoligotyping. In Great Britain 30 different spoligotypes have been identified in cattle and in 16 badgers. Of those in cattle, 12 of those account for 99 per cent. of the isolates.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether development of lesions in cattle following exposure to M.bovis is the result of (a) a more virulent strain, (b) the level of infective dose and (c) the frequency of the infective dose. [144441]
Mr. Bradshaw: The pathogenesis of bovine TB is not yet fully understood. As a result, Defra is funding several research projects into the pathogenesis and immunology of the disease.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average length of herd breakdown was in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 1998; how many 60 day tests were needed to clear (i) suspect and (ii) infected herds in each year; and what the cost of the tests were. [144442]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information is as follows:
(a) The average duration of TB incidents ending in 2002 was skewed by those herds already restricted when TB testing was suspended during the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001. The figures for TB incidents ending in 2002 (the last year for which statistics are available) were as follows: unconfirmed incidents—149 days; confirmed incident—291 days.
6 Jan 2004 : Column 252W
(b) The mean length of unconfirmed new TB incidents (herd breakdowns) ending in 1998 was 114 days, i.e. slightly less than two short interval (60-day) tests. In the same year, the mean length of confirmed new incidents was 208 days.
Information on the cost of tests needed to clear unconfirmed and confirmed herd incidents in each year is not readily available and can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
6 Jan 2004: Column 252W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of badgers which appeared TB free in post-mortem examination were culture positive to M.bovis, in the last year for which figures are available. [144443]
Mr. Bradshaw: The last year for which data are available is 1999. These are from Badger Removal Operations and the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) survey that predate the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and associated RTA survey.
In 1999, 874 badger carcasses were considered suitable for post-mortem examination. 753 displayed no visible lesions suggestive of TB. Mycobacterium bovis was isolated in 54 of these. Therefore, the proportion appearing TB free at post-mortem, but culture positive for m. bovis is 7.2 per cent.
6 Jan 2004: Column 252W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of cattle showed no visible lesions in post mortem examination but were culture positive for M.bovis, in the last year for which figures are available. [144444]
Mr. Bradshaw: Last year, 6,600 samples were sent for laboratory culture after no visible lesions were found at post mortem. Mycobacterium bovis was successfully cultured in 5.6 per cent. of these.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how long Mycobacterium bovis bacilli can survive on open pasture; and under what conditions. [141395]
6 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Bradshaw: Mycobacterium bovis may be present within a variety of media on open pasture, each influencing the survival of the bacilli. In cow manure M. bovis may survive for up to four months in autumn, five months in winter and two months in spring, dependent on concentration. Greater concentrations promote survival.
When exposed to sunlight at 24–34 degrees celsius M. bovis has survived for 5–11 months in manure at pasture. Survival in samples buried in 1cm deep pits has been up to one year and at 5cm deep up to two years.
M. bovis can be highly concentrated in badger urine and can survive for over a week on open pasture during the winter but very few bacilli survive after four weeks. During the summer survival can reduce to less than three days in badger urine.
M. bovis in badger bronchial pus and sputum can survive for up to 10 weeks on open pasture in winter but less than one week in summer. Survival in badger faeces can be for up to one month during the winter but less than two weeks in summer.
Survival may also be influenced by the presence of other microorganisms in the environment. Fungi, algae, protozoans and many other bacteria compete with M. bovis for nutrients, may have greater growth rates, and may produce natural antibiotics.
6 Jan 2004: Column 247W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many TB reactor cattle were reported to her Department and its predecessors, (a) in each year from 1990 to 2002 and (b) from 1 January to 31 October; how many were subject to culture testing; and how many proved TB positive on culture. [142468]
Mr. Bradshaw: Table 1 shows the number of TB reactors, how many were subject to culture for Mycobacterium bovis, and the number successfully cultured for the years 1990–2002 in Great Britain.
Table 2 gives provisional data for the number of TB reactors, the number subject to culture, and the number successfully cultured for Mycobacterium bovis in Great Britain for 2003 (till end of October).
Table 1 GB Figures Number of TB Reactors Number Subject To Culture Testing TB Positive on Culture
1990 719 4 (1)—
1991 1,050 4 (1)—
1992 1,086 (1)— (1)—
1993 1,814 2 (1)—
1994 2,248 515 238
1995 2,861 2,492 1,051
1996 3,296 2,852 1,163
1997 3,358 3,005 1,196
1998 5,063 4,121 1,645
1999 6,047 4,894 2,033
2000 7,143 5,456 2,550
2001 5,472 3,818 1,447
2002 20,053 14,102 2,557
(1)— Data not available
6 Jan 2004: Column 248W
Table 2 2003 GB Figures (provisional) January to October 2003
Number of TB Reactors 17,589
Number Subject To Culture 12,228
TB Positive on Culture 2,681
6 Jan 2004: Column 248W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of whether badgers infected by TB may excrete urine from which viable M. bovis bacilli may be isolated; what the typical quantities per millilitre are; and whether such levels are capable of causing infection in cattle through (a) contamination of feed and (b) other mechanisms. [144445]
Mr. Bradshaw: Some badgers develop TB infection in the kidneys 37 per cent. of infected badgers sampled post mortem between 1971 and 1978 m. bovis was isolated from the kidneys and may excrete M. bovis bacilli in urine. Urine is typically left in trails up to a metre or more in length and may be focussed at a latrine or distributed more randomly as the badger forages. Concentrations of up to 300,000 bacilli per ml of badger urine have been reported and experimental nasal inoculation of cattle suggests that, at this concentration of viable microbes, less than 0.03 ml would need to be inhaled by cattle in order to promote slow infection.
Investigations into infection of cattle from feed and other sources contaminated with infected badger urine are lacking. However, risk of infection to cattle by infected badger urine on cattle feed would be a function of the survival of the microbe in the feed (which is dependent on, for example, duration since excretion, moisture content of the environment, exposure to UV rays) the number of microbes consumed by the cattle and the method of consumption (i.e. ingestion or inhalation). I am unaware of measurements of M. bovis survival in cattle feed but the environment inside farm buildings is generally considered to be conducive to longer periods of survival than at pasture, where M. bovis in badger urine has survived for three days in summer and 28 days in winter.
Cattle appear less able to detect badger urine than faeces at pasture away from latrines. In addition, patches contaminated with urine detected by cattle appear to be sniffed more than those contaminated with faeces. Furthermore, some cattle do not select against latrines and freely graze over them. Therefore, potential sources of risk of cattle contact with infected badger urine include the ingestion of contaminated feed from feed stores or in troughs; investigation/grazing at and around latrines; and the investigation/grazing of contaminated pasture.
6 Jan 2004 : Column 249W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what controls there are on the movement of wild badgers, for relocation elsewhere, with particular reference to Krebs trapping areas. [144446]
Mr. Bradshaw: Badgers are a protected species and it is an offence to take (or attempt to take) a badger from the wild, including for the purpose of relocation elsewhere (Protection of Badgers Act 1992, s.1(1)). A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
There are certain exceptions to this offence, two of which are specifically relevant to the issue of relocating badgers. These are the treatment of injured or sick badgers, and relocations licensed by the appropriate statutory conservation agency or agricultural department (English Nature and Defra, respectively, in England).
Under section 6, a person is not guilty of an offence by reason only of:
"(a) taking or attempting to take a badger which has been disabled otherwise than by this act and is taken or to be taken solely for the purpose of tending it".
As a native species, there are no specific restrictions under current law regulating where badgers are released once they have recovered. Normally, once fit enough to be released into the wild, the badger will be returned to the location where it was originally found. This approach is recommended on welfare grounds due to their territorial nature, and also to avoid any risk of transmitting disease. However, there are situations in which this course of action may not be feasible (particularly in the case of orphaned cubs).
There is a voluntary code of practice covering the rehabilitation and release of badgers, and this has a precautionary approach aimed at minimising the risk of transmitting bovine tuberculosis (TB). All badgers to be relocated are tested for TB three times. Only animals testing negative to all three tests are released and any animal testing positive is euthanased. The code also requires that all released badgers are permanently marked (by a tattoo or microchip) and registered. The code is available via the internet at: http://www. badger.org.uk/action/badger-rehabilitation-protocol-contents.html
6 Jan 2004 : Column 250W
Under section 10 of the Act, licences may be issued to permit badgers to be taken from the wild (and relocated if necessary) for a limited range of specified purposes, including scientific investigation, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing serious damage to property.
Relocating badgers is only permitted where there is considered to be a very low risk of transmitting TB, and before any badgers are released at a new location all animals are tested three times for the disease. All badgers testing positive to any of the three tests, or in contact with a badger testing positive, are euthanased.
Badgers are not relocated as part of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (the so-called Kreb's trial), and the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB have advised that are no special arrangements relating to the relocation of badgers in trial areas.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for post movement testing of cattle for exposure to M. bovis; and what assessment she has made of the implications of such testing (a) within four months of movement and (b) by the date of the next due test of the herd from which the animal came. [144436]
Mr. Bradshaw: All farmers have been sent a leaflet "Golden rules for a healthy herd", which advises purchasers to check the disease status of cattle prior to purchase and to consider arranging a private TB test for their herd.
In February 2003, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced a review of our bovine tuberculosis strategy. Early in the new year we will be publishing a consultation document which will represent the outcome of the first stage of that review. The consultation document will include proposals for short term measures for reducing the risk of geographic spread of bovine TB from high to low incidence areas, including consideration of proposals for the pre and/or post movement testing of cattle.
When considering post-movement testing of cattle sold from farm to farm, we have envisaged that, as a general rule, such tests would be administered between 60 and 120 days after movement (i.e. 2–4 months post movement). This is to ensure that a minimum of 60 days have elapsed since the last test and since any potential exposure to M. bovis on the premises of origin, to avoid problems of de-sensitisation caused by recent testing and to allow for the normal delay in the development of a response to the skin test. Knowledge of whether a pre-movement test had taken place and when, would allow the post movement test to be better targeted.
Assuming post-movement testing is carried out as outlined, the date of the next due test of the herd of origin need not be considered.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the recognised minimum time required is from exposure of cattle to M. bovis to an immune response which will show in the skin test used by her Department. [144437]
6 Jan 2004: Column 251W
Mr. Bradshaw: The immune response elicited by Mycobacterium bovis in cattle takes several weeks to develop to a stage where it is detectable. For the single intradermal comparative test used in the UK and Ireland, this period of "unresponsiveness" or latency varies between 30 and 50 days.
To allow for random and natural variation in the latency period of individual animals, the legislation requires repeat testing to be carried out at intervals of at least 60 days from the date of the removal (or isolation) of all the reactors identified at the previous skin test.
6 Jan 2004: Column 251W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what significant variations in incubation period have been observed in herd breakdowns involving several cattle reactors resulting from infection with M.bovis. [144439]
Mr. Bradshaw: Many factors influence the progression of Mycobacterium bovis, infection into detectable disease, including the strain of the bacterium, size of bacterial challenge and route of infection. Other factors include affected animal (species, breed, genotype, age) or the effects of its environment (nutritional status, stress, other infections and environmental bacteria).
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many strains of M.bovis have been found in (a) cattle and (b) badgers in the UK; and what assessment has been made of the virulence of each strain. [144440]
Mr. Bradshaw: M. bovis isolates are routinely typed using a DNA fingerprinting technique called spoligotyping. In Great Britain 30 different spoligotypes have been identified in cattle and in 16 badgers. Of those in cattle, 12 of those account for 99 per cent. of the isolates.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of whether development of lesions in cattle following exposure to M.bovis is the result of (a) a more virulent strain, (b) the level of infective dose and (c) the frequency of the infective dose. [144441]
Mr. Bradshaw: The pathogenesis of bovine TB is not yet fully understood. As a result, Defra is funding several research projects into the pathogenesis and immunology of the disease.
6 Jan 2004: Column 250W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average length of herd breakdown was in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 1998; how many 60 day tests were needed to clear (i) suspect and (ii) infected herds in each year; and what the cost of the tests were. [144442]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information is as follows:
(a) The average duration of TB incidents ending in 2002 was skewed by those herds already restricted when TB testing was suspended during the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001. The figures for TB incidents ending in 2002 (the last year for which statistics are available) were as follows: unconfirmed incidents—149 days; confirmed incident—291 days.
6 Jan 2004 : Column 252W
(b) The mean length of unconfirmed new TB incidents (herd breakdowns) ending in 1998 was 114 days, i.e. slightly less than two short interval (60-day) tests. In the same year, the mean length of confirmed new incidents was 208 days.
Information on the cost of tests needed to clear unconfirmed and confirmed herd incidents in each year is not readily available and can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
6 Jan 2004: Column 252W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of badgers which appeared TB free in post-mortem examination were culture positive to M.bovis, in the last year for which figures are available. [144443]
Mr. Bradshaw: The last year for which data are available is 1999. These are from Badger Removal Operations and the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) survey that predate the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and associated RTA survey.
In 1999, 874 badger carcasses were considered suitable for post-mortem examination. 753 displayed no visible lesions suggestive of TB. Mycobacterium bovis was isolated in 54 of these. Therefore, the proportion appearing TB free at post-mortem, but culture positive for m. bovis is 7.2 per cent.
6 Jan 2004: Column 252W
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of cattle showed no visible lesions in post mortem examination but were culture positive for M.bovis, in the last year for which figures are available. [144444]
Mr. Bradshaw: Last year, 6,600 samples were sent for laboratory culture after no visible lesions were found at post mortem. Mycobacterium bovis was successfully cultured in 5.6 per cent. of these.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)