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.