Cattle / Cattle : A Critical Analysis.

In the same edition of 'Nature' as the work by the Oxford team, (see post below) is a critical analysis in rather more readable form by Mark Woolhouse of the University of Edinburgh's Centre for Infectious Diseases, who concludes;

" In a further analysis, (of Spatial multiple logistic regression), Gilbert et al, found that cattle movements played a more obvious role outside the 'core' areas where bTb is already established, implying that movements are more important for the spread of disease than for its persistence. Indeed there are regions where bTb occurs only sporadically despite regular imports of cattle from infected areas. Some other necessary factor seems to be missing - which brings the discussion round to wildlife reservoirs and especially the badger".

At the risk of being disrespectful, we would also flag up the another apparently 'missing factor', referred to and reported by Matthew 4 in the post below. That is the collective brain cell of the Oxford team in totally ignoring the obvious.
A point so eloquently picked up by Mark Woolhouse who continues:

"Badgers are known to carry bTb, but Gilbert and colleague's study is equivocal (that's a a polite way of saying dubious, of double meaning, questionable etc.) on the animal's role in the epidemiology of the disease in British cattle. Proximity to known badger locations does appear in their analysis - but it is not prominent".

"To better understand the role of badgers in the persistence of bTb, we need to turn to experimental studies such as the Four Counties trial in Ireland, the results of which were published this year. (and Offaly, and Thornbury, Steeple Leez and Hartland)

Mark Woolhouse concludes that the Four County trial with a reduction of up to 95 percent in cattle Tb relative to its reference areas "is the clearest demonstration to date of a link between badgers and bovine tb in cattle. Given the incidence of bovine tb in Britain is expected to remain high, or even increase further, the sooner that effective control measures are introduced, the better. "

We agree. But would add a caution; that any attempt to clamp down on cattle movements by either pre / post movement testing must be for disease control reasons and not political expediency, and run concurrent to and simultaneous with the clearance of bTb from all known wildlife reservoirs.

Infectious bacteria do not respond to political bullying - they just spread..................

Boys and Their Toys...

We closed the previous post with the observation (based on years of cynical involvement with the relationship between animal diseases and political expedience) that neither politicians nor politically motivated vets should be seen within a mile of any infectious bacteria. To that group we would add the new breed of animal, "Spatial Ecologists, using Mutiple Logistic Regressions", or Statistical Modellers as they are now quaintly entitled.

Readers may remember this new breeds first salvo into the murky world of animal disease and politics when, led by Townie Blurrs' chief scientist, Sir David King, the computers whirred and clanked and 11 million animals died in unholy circumstances for the want of some real expertise in genuine disease control. Ignored were Prof. Fred Brown and his Smart Cycler, (that was American for God's sake - what did you expect?) and world experts on FMD such as Dr. Simon Barteling, both of whom were imploring the Government to identify candidate infected animals with the PCR cycler and vaccinate the rest. Instead Bliar appointed this new scientific animal, a Statistical Modeller in the shape of Prof. Roy Anderson, who had no previous experience of animal disease control, but on the strength of computer input, 'modelled' to death over 8 million healthy animals in an illegal contiguous cull.

Now computers are great, but if in the input is wrong (spot the deliberate mistake in the previous paragraph - or was it?) then it's a case of 'crap in = crap out'. Which brings us to the much publicised piece in 'Nature' last week, which pumped cattle movements from the Cattle Movement Service (but little else) into a computer - and concluded in language which seemed to have been written with the serious intent of preventing anyone else understanding it, that cattle movements have caused the explosion of bTb.

Music to the ears of a Minister for Inertia (Margaret Beckett) who obviously paid a great deal of money for this paper which says much but means little - and of course the lovely Elaine King.

The paper starts with the staggering observation that bovine Tb's "Transmission pathways remain poorly understood".

We would point out with the greatest respect of course, that from 1895 (and that is not a typing error) the 'transmission pathways' of Tb have been explored, logged, and experimented with. Firstly in 1895 by Professor Koch of the London Public Health Laboratory, and during the whole of the last century by a raft of experts in infectious diseases. We know from answers to Parliamentary Questions, how much Tb bacteria is carried in badger urine, and the dosage needed to infect cattle in various ways. We know the survival rate of this bacteria under various circumstances, what carries it and the influence of environmental factors - and for those answers (all archived) as ever, we are most grateful. The collective brain cell of the Oxford team was obviously not party to all this 100 years of research, even though one member was influential some of it.

So what was entered into this exercise of 'spatial modelling' of bTb?
Cattle movements from the CTS database 2000 - 2003, and then backwards from 1997 - 2003. using the same data . This because " spatial and temporal patterns of movement were shown to be consistent from year to year". One might enquire, if such movements were 'consistent from year to year', what other variable was the cause of the rise in cattle Tb?
However, the paper goes on "Processing constraints and the current structure of the CTS database, prevented movement data to be generated on the fly during the simulation process as a function of the previous year's simulated distribution: it was therefore necessary to identify a surrogate variable for animal movements from previously infected areas".

You couldn't make that up - or could you?. Do we read this, that if data was unavailable from CTS, then a 'surrogate variable ' was substituted? Well, well, well. And they call this 'science'?

As well as cattle movements a few other hopefuls (out of a possible list of 100) were entered as predictor categories, including a "broad range of anthropogenic, biological, demographic, climatic and topograhic variables". The team describe "the mean of normalised deviation vegetation index". That sounds good doesn't it? Haven't a bloody clue what it means but..
Another gem, " encapsualted in Fourier-processed satellite imagery in modelling the distribution of bTb in Great Britain".

At least they 'paired' the movements, so they had caught up with one 'Off' and one 'On' equalling just a single movement. But did they exclude a movement to slaughter? The paper does not say.

The bits which this site finds most interesting - apart from what was left out of the modelling exercise - is the statement totally missed by industry commentators thusfar:

"the pattern of spread of bTb between 1984 and 2003 shows an expanding core.."
and:
"short distance spread can be viewed as contagion to adjacent or nearby farms located within a few kms. by direct contact or bourne by wind, insects, rodents or alternative hosts".

and:
"movements are more important for the spread of infection than for its persistence.".

Precisely.

M. bovis although a tenacious little bug may arguably be excluded from all but two of the hypotheses given for contagions by the Oxford teams which is confirmed as "short distance spread from an expanding core".

The paper continues, "long distance jump-spread can be viewed as contagion occurring between locations separated by large areas of disease absence, and caused by the movement of infectious individuals or material".

Fairly profound that one, but we get the picture. But let's not forget the translocation of the other part of the infection cycle - to parts of the country where they are not likely to be ' persecuted'. It's not just cattle that move. Badgers translocated in cage traps are a disease opportunity - a Tb takeaway.

Despite the attention grabbing headlines of this 'work', another observation conveniently ignored by the mainstream media concerns such long distance movements of cattle;
"It should be pointed out that ...there are several regions into which many animals are imported and where the disease appears regularly but does not seem to persist. Potential explanations include ...the imported animals remain there only a short time before being slaughtered, and that suitable wildlife reservoirs do not exist in those areas or the conditions necessary for the establishment in those species are not fulfilled".

So they got there in the end. But conclude that their work has 'established a clear requirement for further examination of cattle movements to define the critical movement categories.."

Are they are asking for more money?

BCMS confirm that our Matthew 5 has had 'No 'ON' movements of bought in cattle ' onto his farm. The farm, as with two of our other editors is ring fenced to prevent cattle / cattle contact, yet we have all watched that "expanding core" of disease creep nearer and engulf our herds. And stay there.

The headline of the Oxford work is 'Cattle Movements and Bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain'.

What part of 'No 'ON' movements' do these people not understand?

A Prolonged Wringing of Hands.

We referred (in the post below), to the profound witterings of the Chief Veterinary Officer Dr. Debbie Reynolds at the launch of Defra's Animal Health Report 2004 - this in the context of an increase in the pile of dead cattle as Tb reactors by 30 percent in the first 3 months of 2005, which she was happy to oversee. The dear lady also announced that "The industry will be putting forward proposals for Tb control strategy that would involve badger culling" , and it would be presented to the Minister, (our own Ben Bradshaw, Minister for Conservation and Fisheries. Yup the parcel stopped on his chair) in the next few weeks.

We assume that this refers to the Minister's request that the 'industry' comes up with a plan, to halt the scourge of bovine tb through the cattle herds, to which we have also referred, and which is presently doing the rounds of 'discussion'.

Dr. Reynolds went on "We want a sustainable long term solution on the wildlife component. The scientific evidence base for future changes is very important. As laid out in the strategy, if wildlife measures are to be adopted they need to be effective, cost beneficial, take account of animal welfare and be socially acceptable".

She described such a policy as "a major investment to find a sustainable way to deal with wildlife".

We'll deal with those points one at a time, but we will not refer to anything Defra touches as 'science' - in the true meaning of that word.

Cost beneficial. The minions at Page street have added up Krebs, divided by a not- very- large pile of trapped badgers - (arguably the wrong ones) and remember 57 percent of the traps were interfered with, and 12 percent went AWOL, and come up with a figure of £'X'000 per badger, to control Tb - which frightened them to death. The minions not the badgers. The sad thing is that they actually believed this rubbish, and fed it all into the regulation 'computer model' ending up with zillions of £'s which far outweighed the donations from PAL and the 'animal welfare' charities. Sp whatever the core discussion group comes up with, cage traps are not a likely candidate. They are indiscriminate, far too slow, open to abuse and hence very expensive.

Animal Welfare. By this we assume the lady means the welfare of any targetted wildlife, and not the piles of dead cattle - about which she appears to care not one jot. Game management specialists are already employed by Defra on their 'deer management' strategy. With night vision stalking rifles, that is as good as it gets. Their class 1 'Game management ' qualification ensures they are excellent marksmen with a wider appreciation of deer habitat and laws governing their control. They keep numbers under control for a given area, taking out the old and the weak. Her own 'wildlife' teams are in the main, well versed in wild animal control, habitat and management. She could do a lot worse than listen to them. What must be avoided is the stirring up or perturbation of a group of badgers, leading to territorial aggression, which spreads their endemic Tb through bite wounding. We would favour mapping a strong vibrant sett in an area of cattle testing clear, in a density of about 1 adult per sq. km as described by the late Earnest Neal, as "abundant", - and gas the dispersers, and single hole 'problem' sets and sets disturbing sensitive wildlife habitats, houses and gardens, farms and cattle, using carbon monoxide. This was suggested by Dr. William Stanton of the Somerset Wildlife Trust in 1999 and described in our post below. To continue with the 'animal welfare' bit, simultaneously we would use BCG vaccines to protect the cubs in that main set, and continue to monitor all the outlying sets in the area, to pick up the 'badgers which the badgers have excluded' from their main group.

Socially acceptable. Defra have a library of pictures of badgers suffering from advanced Tb. It is much less than honest not to show that suffering. Landowners are seeing in increasing numbers the results of the total protection that this delightful animal 'enjoys' and it is mendacious to pretend it isn't happening. Honesty and politics are unlikely bedfellows, but the lady could do worse than 'tell it as it is' - before the tabloids print pictures of what ramblers and walkers are likely to trip over - any time now. Emaciated, mangy and boasting abcessed sores which ooze highly infectious pus. The press is keen to sieze on animal cruelty stories and Defra's deliberate abandonment of a wild animal species to an the endemic zoonosis 'Tuberculosis' is an accident waiting to happen.

But while Dr. Reynolds is pacing time hand in hand with 'the Industry', she is also saying that she will let Krebs run its course. Another 2 years? 3? The next election? And while she "regrets" farmer anger, and shares their "frustration" she is not going to be hurried into any decision.

"There is a serious problem, and I share the frustration. If it were possible to bring forward the decision, I would".

We deliberately entitled this post 'A Prolonged Wringing of Hands'. We would also add that politicians and 'political' vets should not be seen within a mile of infectious bacteria.

To Test or not to Test?

Last year in answer to the exponential rise in Tb cattle slaughterings, our Ben - bless him he's back with the poisoned chalice again after the election - set up a couple of committees. One was the Pre-Movement testing committee, which had a remit from Defra to discuss - just that, 'Pre Movement Testing'.. Not whether pre movement testing worked or was effective as a disease control method - just do it. Sounds good though doesn't it? And cost didn't enter because the farmer was going to pay. Generously, our Ben agreed to pay for the tuberculin. That's 25p against the farmer's share of about £25 for the vet - twice.

We've told you several times on this blog, about severe cattle measures applied both in Ireland and the UK which have made not a dent in cattle Tb, if the reservoir in wildlife was not tackled simultaneously. And we (as ever) are most grateful to Captain Ben for the answers to Parliamentary Questions (archived) which confirm that "in the absence of a wildlife reservoir, regular testing (of cattle) and slaughter (of reactors) is all that is necessary".

But reporting to Defra this week the Pre Movement Testing Group, having cogitated, pondered and meditated their extraordinarily restrictive remit, expect Defra to implement some type of pre movement test next year.

Speaking at the launch of Defra's Animal Health 2004 report (not doing too well at that are they - cattle slaughterings up 30%? Not very well at all.) Chief Veterinary Officer Debbie Reynolds said "Tb is a regional problem and we need to keep clean areas clean. This depends on rigourous implementation of cattle controls and pre-movement testing would play a fundamental part in this".

That's easy then. Rigourous cattle controls and all the tb just - goes away? Errr no. It does not, as Ireland found in the 'Downie' era and certain DVM's found to their cost in the UK. (see posts and comments below)

But pre movement testing can be downright dangerous as farmers purchasing cattle so tested will assume, quite wrongly that they are 'clear' of tb. The skin test is not at fault, its implementation in this situation, combined with the expected industry 'exclusions' is.

We will explain;

1. The skin test has a latency of 30 - 50 days from exposure to m.bovis to the provoking of a skin reaction from that exposure.

2. The industry is likely to want at least an 8 week window from a pre movement test to selling, in which to arrange sales.

3. The industry is likely to ask for exemption for calves under 8 weeks, and slaughter stock which is probably OK, but also for store animals up to 15, 18 or even 20 months - which is risky.

4. The skin test is an 'excellent herd test' - John Bourne says so, so it must be. But on a single animal tested just once it's accuracy falls to under 70%.

So what have we got so far? 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = a whole lot of 'missed' potential reactors.

The latency and 8 week exemption window add up to 4 months. That's 30 percent of reactors missed on an annual testing regime. Store animals exempt up to some 'teenage' cut off point, even though SVS tell us that 50 percent of reactors are in such young stock, would leave only a third of the animals tested reasonably covered by any pre movement test - and that compromised by the 'single animal' factor. Under conditions described above, we reckon about 60 percent of potential reactors would be missed.

But from Defra's Page Street disease control centre - it sounds good, and of course Defra isn't planning to pay.

Cattle Slaughtered - up nearly 30 percent.

In the first three months of 2005, cattle slaughtered as Reactors, Dangerous contacts or Inconclusives after a Tb test leapt by a staggering 29.5 percent compared with 2004.

You will remember of course that our number- crunching Minister of Fisheries and Conservation in the last government, (Rear-Admiral Ben) tried to tell the electorate and parliament that the bTb 'epidemic' had plateaued - compared with 2003 that is. Which is the very thing his department told everyone else not to do. Compare with 2003 that is, or 2002 either, because of FMD in 2001, the following years were absolutely 'not to be used for comparative purposes'. And yup - as we've pointed out many times on this blog, our Ben went and did just that. And then tried to tell us it was under control.

Well it isn't.

Figures now released (and available on the Defra website www.defra.gov.uk) show a huge rise in cattle slaughtered, and also in herds under restriction Jan - March 2005. Glos., Devon, Hereford & Worcs. and Cornwall all have between 11 and 15 percent (of herds registered) under restriction because of a reactor found at TT testing. Wiltshire and Somerset are both in excess of 5 percent.

In a letter to the Daily Telgraph May 6th. Cornish farmer Margaret Miles, of St. Mawes described watching Tb creep into the Roseland peninsular towards her closed herd. She tells readers that since 1966, the herd has bought in no dairy replacements, only a stock bull once every 10 years or so. Four in 40 years. Geographically the farm has a secure border on 3 sides so thought the herd was fairly safe. Not any more. At a routine (annual) test last October reactors was found, since when this herd has lost 40 percent of its cattle in successive 60 day tests over the past six months. And no doubt contributes to the figures quoted above. (The last purchased bull had been on the farm for his allotted 10 year span, and had been tested every 2 years and then annually- all clear. Last summer 5 or 6 dead badgers were found on the farm.)

Ms. Miles has calculated that based on the this spring's figures from Defra, and if no action is taken on the wildlife reservoir, within 6 years ALL of Cornwall's herds will be under restriction.

As Glos. and Devon are actually worse than Cornwall, with a higher percentage of herds under restriction - that situation shouldn't take so long for them.

In 1986, GB had less than 100 herds under restriction, and were mortified to have slaughtered 686 cattle - in a whole year. At the end of March 2005, 6,334 herds were under movement restriction and in just 3 months Defra slaughtered 8,429 cattle.

Well done Ben. What a legacy. And despite your slippery pole tactics - yup, you've got the problem back in your 'new' job. Welcome back, Captain Ben.

404 - and rising.

In a letter to the Veterinary Record (23rd. April), senior vets from Devon, Glos, Bristol and Sussex give an update on the letter addressed to the Secretary of State for Agriculture, requesting urgent action on the reservoir of bTb in badgers.

What will not be lost on the CVO (Chief Veterinary Officer) is that the signatories were SVS personel of the highest level, all specialists in bovine tuberculosis, but now unfettered by government employment restrictions.
The 'Official Secrets Act' clause we expect, would impede their successors' ability to "tell it as it is" - which is exactly what it is meant to do.


Describing the letter as;
".... the result of total exasperation that a government department, statutorily charged with the responsibility to eradicate a serious disease such as bovine Tb, and in full knowledge of the cause, can allow its control to deteriorate so rapidly that the number of outbreaks now equates to that last seen 40 years ago.

They continue,
"Over many years peer-reviewed articles, written by State Veterinary Service (SVS) staff and MAFF biologists and agreed for publication by the then SVS Directorates, have elaborated the role of the badger as a maintenance host for bovine Tb in Britain, and the effect this disease was having on the species. Has the Directorate made the Minister aware of these findings?

Over half the adult badgers found dead in fields or farm buildings were shown to have generalised Tb with emaciation. Insidious lung disease in wild badgers was found to continue for a year before death. But where renal Tb developed following generalisation, death was accelerated. Tranmission of infection from one social group of badgers to another was found generally to occur through immigration of diseased individuals. But in disturbed populations, and those with a particularly high population density, territorial defence was found to result in fights, which frequently led to the disturbing phenomenon of bite wound transmission of infection.

They remind the Minister that..
"Where strategic culling was undertaken the disease was successfully controlled until 1986, since which time piecemeal efforts, followed by the cessation of all control, have led to an unfettered progress of the disease across much of the endemically infected area. Tb has become a serious threat to the wellbeing of the species.

While primarily a disease of the badger, infection is not only spreading to other badgers, but spilling over into the environment to affect other species. Cattle, being abundant and fully susceptible are frequently acting as sentinels of badger disease. Testing and slaughter of reactors largely averts the devlopment of overt disease in most cattle, but this wretched disease continues unabated in the maintenance host.

Infection in all 5 species of wild deer in this country has now been confirmed and a worrying development of infection in rural cats has been recognised more recently. (See our post: The Cat's out of The Bag - archived.)

Treatment of diseased wild animals is not feasible, and culling such communities is unfortunately necessary to stop the remorseless spread of this serious notifiable disease to cattle and man. We feel attempts to raise the immune status of apparently healthy badgers should also be made, using BCG. Wide scale trials of vaccination of badgers are a positive measure that should be attempted to protect the species as far as possible. Or do we continue with current policy, and watch the problem become completely out of control? One certainty is the complete failure of control measures directed against cattle alone, the policy advocated by the ISG. Just killing more and more cattle was the approach we used 40 years ago before we knew that the badger was a maintenance host. Then it was understandable, now it is incomprehensible.

The Minister has announced that action against this problem will await the completion of the hopelessly flawed Krebs trials, which have been more to do with political procrastination than science. All signatories to our letter expressed 'no confidence' in these trials, and considered them completely discredited. Professor Godfray, Imperial College, London found the statistical method to be flawed, and has questioned what benefit might be gained from their continuance following the highly successful Four Area Trials in Ireland. In Parliamentary Questions it was admitted that trapping efficiency in the Krebs trial was from 30 - 80 percent. Additionally, there have been problems of non-compliance and interference. At the end of the excercise the results are likely to be inconclusive and unreliable, despite a spend to date of £31 million, and a projected further £7.4 million of public money.

We feel that this charade should cease immediately, allowing effective control to be started forthwith".

404 veterinary surgeons and members of the RCVS, have now signed the letter indicating their 'total exasperation' with current non-policy on bovine tb. The one sided approach. - that is just slaughtering more and more cattle, with no action on the wildlife reservoir of the disease - they point out was the approach used 40 years ago, before the badger's role was known. (And when, as David Denny points out (see post below) cattle contact and spread of bTb was successfully prevented by 2 strands of wire 6 feet apart).

Their comment on this approach is scathing: " Then it was understandable, now it is incomprehensible".

We agree.

The Tb Saga - A Vet's View.

Practising veterinarian, David Denny, B.Vet.Med, M.R.C.V.S from Worcestershire, has provided the editors with his overview of the bTb saga, past and present.

On testing:
"There was some satisfaction in testing cattle for Tb in the 1960's. Reactor cattle, some in advanced stages of the disease having been slaughtered, the remaining cattle passed their subsequent tests and farms remained free of Tb for 30 or 40 years. Job well done.

No longer: there is now despair and frustration. In spite of using a more sensitive test, finding reactor cattle is only the start of a major problem for all concerned.

In spite of the reactors being slaughtered, at subsequent 60 day or 6 month tests on virtually all farms, I find more reactors. The farms remain under restrictions - unable to move cattle on or off the premises (except for direct slaughter) The farm is unable to trade.

Usually cattle can leave their winter housing in the spring and go out to grass 'free of tb', only to react again in the autumn. (at a 6 month test). But it is not uncommon for cattle to become infected during the winter while housed.

In the 1960's, a double fence six feet apart was sufficient to stop the spread of bTb. now there is a lateral spread of two or three miles annually. Cattle in completely 'closed' herds (those who do not buy in cattle) are having Tb breakdowns. Cattle to cattle infection overall is minimal and insignificant. In several incidences, in spite of some reactor cattle with clinical signs of Tb ( coughing, nasal discharge, loss of weight etc.) that are confirmed as Tb postmortem, the remaining cattle from the same group have passed their two 60 day tests and the subsequent 6 month one. That hardly indicates a high incidence of cattle to cattle transmission."

"Doubts are now being made about the sensitivety of the intradermal test and the new blood test. That claim is based on the number of reactor cattle with 'Non visible lesions' at slaughter. The doubters show a complete lack of understanding of the disease process and the body response. Both tests look for response from the animal when it has met up (been challenged) with Tb. - an antigen, its immune status. Depending on the size of the challenge and its health status, the animal can either overcome the challenge and remain healthy, or the disease process progresses. In the case of Tb, which is a very slow disease to develop, it takes at least 6 weeks before any lesion in a lymph gland develops. More often than not, 'No Visible Lesions' is not a false positive as claimed, but an indication that the animal has been challenged with Tb, and is at an early stage of the disease process: if the challenge is small, then the animal will stop producing antibodies and pass subsequent tests.

The new blood test (Gamma interferon) is far more sensitive than the intradermal test, resulting in many more 'positives' and even more cattle being slaughtered. It is only of use when there is no reservoir of infection in the badgers (or avian - ed.)"

On badgers:
"Once badgers became a protected species in the 1970's, together with an increase of maize growing, there has been a population explosion: in some regions, a high proportion of badgers have Tb, coinciding with a high incidence of Tb in the cattle herds. Maize is a favourite food of badgers, who waive all 'territorial rights' for a feed. It is high in energy, offering badgers a higher survival rate. Unlike most other animals, badgers infected with Tb can take 3 or more years to die from it. For most of that time they are apparently healthy - capable of breeding etc., but they are infectious - able to transmit Tb to others. It is during their latter six months when they become 'ill', and suffer. Having been 'expelled' (from the group sets) they go into 'sheltered accomodation' in or close to farm buildings and an easy source of food. This is the most dangerous spread of Tb (for cattle). They spread Tb in their urine - 300,000 bacteria in a teaspoonful - which they dribble out as they move, and in their saliva - and so contaminate troughs and feed."

On Krebs:
" The Proactive culling, like Reactive has been sabotaged by the so-called badger protection groups, but this has not significantly reduced the badger population. Badgers are running around in broad daylight - so what must be happening at night? Since the traps have been placed on the runs and around the sets, it is only the healthy badger (although it may be infected) that is trapped. The terminally ill badger in 'sheltered accomodation', escapes. It is these badgers that are transmitting Tb to housed cattle. Since it takes these badgers six months to die, it will be at least a year before any improvement in the cattle situation can be expected. The termination of reactive culling was premature for that reason. Those responsible are ignorant of badger behaviour.

Another significant factor in the efficiency of the trial, is that within the culling areas there have been 10 - 20 % of farmers and other landowners who have forbidden culling on their properties. This has resulted in areas of very high badger population on them. Since badgers travel miles to feed, if infected, these badgers will act as reservoir of infection for cattle within the 'trial' areas. (editor's note: If a farm was under Tb restriction at the start of the 'trial', then it did not qualify to take part anyway, and no culling of any sort took place. A hotspot within a hotspot.)

"It is inevitable that given very close contact, an infected sow suckling her offspring, will infect them. Who could have designed a 'culling trial' which has a closed season of 3 months to allow this? The whole trial appears to revolve around the survival of the badger at the expense of the cattle. It (Krebs trial) is no more than an expensive charade."

On other players:
"I am under the impression that there is an orchestrated campaign to exonerate the badger from having any significant input into the transmission of Tb to cattle. A major part appears to be cleverly conducted by the Chief Executive of the NFBG Dr. Elaine King.

When reactor cattle are slaughtered in their thousands and while she appears happy for badgers to suffer from Tb, perhaps she can reveal what her motives are? The current scapegoats include the FMD debacle, inefficient tests both intradermal and the recent blood test, cattle to cattle transmission, badgers catching Tb from cattle, late testing, cattle movements and the involvement of deer. Anything to exonerate the badger from blame.

The ISG (Independent Scientific Group) of seven (5 being professors, only one a veterinary surgeon) which advises Ministers on Tb strategy, are either research scientists or statisticians (3). and have minimal field experience.

The conclusion:
Those of us on the front line, whether veterinary surgeons or farmers know that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the badger is the reservoir of infection, and is by far the most significant factor in the Tb saga.

In that front line, there is frustration and very low morale. Any plans to implement further petty and irrelevant restrictions will result in a total loss of goodwill and a complete breakdown in co-operation. Until badgers are culled, the situation will only deteriorate. Why is acceptable to slaughter reactor cattle, many pedigree and heavily pregnant and not to cull the infected badgers who are responsible? Any reduction in Tb depends on co-operation of the farmers. If they are asked to take on more financial and other responsibilities they must be allowed to remove the reservoir of infection - the badgers.

Why should farmers have to 'stand and stare' (quote by a client after 15% of his pedigree cattle were found to be reactors) while their livlihoods and generations of work is destroyed as a result of Tb?

Professors do NOT have a monopoly of knowledge and statisticians in a remote office are NOT competent to determine future policy".

D.J.B. Denny 2005.

'Identify and get rid of the Source'....

Two comments on the post describing cattle to cattle controls which failed in the Republic of Ireland (below) referred to measures adopted by a Cornish Divisional Veterinary Officer, 30 years ago. As our current Lords and Masters seem hell bent on repeating past futilities, on our reader's behalf, we thought it appropriate to find out exactly what measures had been taken, and what was the result.

Our information (from retired vetenarians) is that to clear bTb 'once and for all' from the west of Cornwall, in 1972 a Scotsman, Mr. William Tate was dispatched south to "identify and get rid of the source". Like some of his colleagues today, Mr. Tate concentrated on the reservoir of what he assumed was 'undiscovered bTb in the cattle'. Early infections, not flagged up by the skin test he felt were undermining the whole bTb eradication process. The comment on the blog pointed out that under his direction, 'severe interpretation' was applied to all tests, routine or 60 day. No prisoners were taken, but Mr. Tate we have been told, went far beyond that. He was 30 years ahead of the Ministry in constructing a mountain of 'cohorts'. If a reactor was revealed in a defined group of cattle - he slaughtered the lot as 'dangerous contacts'.

So, severe interpretation on all tests - that's only a +3 ml difference on a bovine reaction - and all animals in the group slaughtered if one failed. But Mr. Tate was looking for animals undisclosed by the skin test. Did he find them?

No, he did not. And neither did he reduce the level of reactors in west Cornwall . How could he, when the maintenance reservoir was not in the cattle at all. . . ?

The second comment from 'George', refers to Mr. Tate's frustration and stress in not fulfilling his goal. If this blog can make known the 'mistakes' of the past, so they are not repeated by naive opportunists and scientific lightweights of the present, then those mistakes will not have been made in vain.

From the Front Line: Summary

Worcestershire vet, David Denny B.Vet.Med. MRCVS has provided the editors with a copy of his letter which was sent to members of the House of Lords. We quote the summary below, and will post his 'TB Saga' over the next week.

" The Tb situation in cattle has been allowed by Politicians, to insiduously deteriorate over the past 15 plus years. Now, as a direct result of badgers being made a protected species in the 1970's, it is a catastrophe.

Typically, in an attempt to solve one problem - badger baiting - another problem has been created; not only has there been a population explosion of badgers, but the involvement of the badger 'protection' groups which under the guidance of the Chief Executive -Dr. Elaine King - have developed into a very powerful lobby. These groups are prepared to allow badgers to suffer from Tb. What are their motives? Who are these groups and how are they financed?

They have sabotaged the Krebs' trial by intimidation and the destruction of traps. Since it is illegal to transport badgers without a license, where do they relocate the trapped badgers? They are too intelligent to just let them go, to be re-trapped.

Ministers, having been 'control freaks' during the Foot and Mouth debacle are now shirking their responsibilities for fear of upsetting the 'electorate'.

Bacteria and viruses are not sensitive to Political spin.

The situation has spiralled out of control. ACTION NOW."

D.J.B.Denny, B.Vet. Med, M.R.C.V.S


to be continued.......

Anything you can do......

.... the UK can do better. Especially if it involves re-inventing wheels or joining the 'Flat Earth' society ( or sundry other beneficiaries of the current btb explosion.)

To move forward, it is sometimes wise to look back, and this site is most grateful for documention of the Republic of Ireland's fight against bTb, which highlight the crass futility of nailing the cattle to the floor, while allowing a wildlife reservoir to flourish.

In 1960, R of I had 160,000 reactors and instigated a raft of cattle measures, county by county to eradicate the disease from - the cattle. These included compulsory and regular testing, prohibited the movement of cattle into the designated area except under license (permit), regulated the movement of cattle into and out of herds within the area, controlled public sales and disposed of reactor cattle.

By 1965, the disease had shrunk back to 20,000 reactors, but there it stayed averaging +/- 30,000 per year over the next 20 years.

Enter the 'Downie' Era. In 1988, this new broom decided to rid the country of btb 'once and for all' and get rid of the reservoir of btb in the cattle. And 19 new measures were brought in to sweep it all away. These included:

* Exhaustive tuberculin testing. (44 million tests , 7 million cattle , over 4 years)

* A reactor collection service and improved compensation / hardship grants.

*Random sample testing of herds by veterinarians.

*Establishment of a specialised research, investigation and epidemiology unit for bTb.

*Continuation of a pre movement test.

*Improved control of dealers.

*De population of persistantly infected herds.

*Improved identification - cattle tags + checks at markets, abattoirs.

*Improved post mortem procedures at meat plants.

*Establishment of badger research and control services.

*Control of calf movements.


These measures were combined with an establishment of a Tb farm advisory service, and improved DVO procedures.

And the result of 44 million tests on 7 million cattle over 4 years and pre movement testing etc?

At the start of the 'Era';

1988 30,000 reactors.
1989 42,000
1990 41,000
1991 35,000

And at the end:
1992 35,000

And despite all that sweeping (under the carpet?) +/ - 30,000 is where it remained......

.....until the East Offaly badger removal project, which ran 1989 - 95 and showed a drop of over 90 percent in cattle tb, followed by the 4 County Trial which achieved a 96 percent reduction in the area with the tightest border control.

Quotes from this peer reviewed Irish work:

"....bovine to bovine transmission of M.bovis is no longer the primary source of new outbreaks." Griffin & Dolan 1995

"...generally little evidence of transmission from each primary (cattle) case."
Griffin 1991, Flanagan, Finn et al 1998.

"The most striking change was the absence of large outbreaks of the disease (bTb) in the Project area (Offaly badger clearance area) in later years..." Eves 1999

"Cattle herds present in the badger-removal area had a significantly lower proportion of new confirmed herd restrictions compared with cattle from an area where no systematic badger removal was attempted" . O.Mairtin, Williams et al 1998.


And so the (ecological) wheel has turned full circle, and under a shrill, strident and vaccuous onslaught from the ISG's Prof Bourne and cohort Elaine King, the UK is considering - doing exactly what had absolutely no effect in Ireland 1988 - 91.

As we've said before, this site has no problem with genuine disease control measures, but we don't do 'comfort blankets' for political expediency. A post movement test for breeding cattle going into areas of 3/4 year testing is sensible. That said, only 5% of new bTb outbreaks are outside the heartlands of bTb but after 7 years of political inertia, those heartlands are not just 7 or 8 'hotspots' as described by Prof. Harris in 1997, but a huge area stretching from Cornwall to the north Midlands and into Cumbria. When the RBCT started, 75 percent of the tb problem was within the areas covered. By 2004, 88 percent was outside them. Like Topsy - they've grown and grown and grown - just as Prof. Harris predicted.

Industry 'Action Plan' for bTB

At a meeting in Exeter on April 14th., representatives of the countryside organisations, veterinary practitioners and researchers, rural businesses and farmers met under the NFU's stewardship to prepare the draft 'Strategy' for eradicating bTb. This had been requested by the outgoing minister for Conservation and Fisheries, Ben Bradshaw (see post below).

Our comments on that move were scathing. But having told vets 18 months ago that his 'strategy' on bTb was "Not to be in the hot seat when any decisions had to be made", we take our hats off to the upwardly mobile political animal, Ben Bradshaw. He's made it, and as he energetically defends his (Exeter) seat, has thrown the ball back to the industry.

But we digress. At the meeting delegates heard of:

*New work by Exeter University which is finished but now languishes under a government 'purdah' until after the election. This mirrors work at Reading on the effect of Tb breakdowns on farming businesses and the wider rural economy, which found that 75 - 80 percent of Compulsory Purchase valuations were broadly in line with market values.

* 7.25 percent of cattle herds are now under restriction.

*At the beginning of the RBCT (Krebs) 75 percent of the breakdowns were within a Krebs' area. Currently 12 percent are - meaning that the 'hotspots' have exploded outwards - just as Prof. Steve Harris predicted. "It gives me no pleasure to say, we told you so", was his comment.

*Veterinary researchers told the group that transmission chain of bTb is primarily badger - badger, (given the close knit sharing of air space in the sets) then badger - cattle. Cattle - cattle is slight and cattle - badger insignificant.

*Work on cattle to cattle transmission, exactly mirroring current ISG recommendations had been done in the 1980's in the Republic of Ireland. 'Very intensive measures' including annual testing, pre and post movement testing had devastated the industry's ability to trade, vastly increased costs but had minimal impact on the incidence of bTb. (See post above. Anything you can Do ...) The Republic then conducted the trial at East Offaly, followed by the recent 4 County trial and now a 'population management + BCG' thrust. (see post; The Luck of the Irish.. below)

*On BCG for badgers, the R of I are much nearer to a field trial with a badger vaccine than our own VLA, as are NZ. And their most promising candidate gives more protection against lung lesions. (see post below Damping Down)

*Gamma Inteferon can be helpful under certain circumstances, but with a wildlife interface, it needs a 'bottomless pit of money'.

*In 1988 our own UK veterinarians and scientists conducted a BCG field trial - and it worked.

*RTA badger surveys were a vital tool. Tuberculosis in RTA badgers was followed within 3 years by Tb in the cattle herds nearest the RTA casualties. "A useful technique - stopped by politicians." Another 'purdah' is in place on current RTA survey for hotspots v. cattle herd breakdown maps. (Why are we not surprised?)

*Prof. Harris' latest population survey - approx. 800,000 badgers. Given the time from his survey to publication to today, the figure could be 1,000,000. At that density, changes to the weather and farming practises, constriction of available land etc. put them at considerable stress, and vulnerable to territorial aggression.

*The effect of this density on the wider ecology. Ground nesting birds, hedghogs and incursion of sets from woodland into fields and property causing danger and damage.

Conclusion and Draft Strategy.

The group confirmed that they would work with government in 'partnership' short term to reduce, and ultimately eradicate bTb from the environment.

They urged that the best testing methods available be used, to identify and remove infected populations of badgers, using vaccines to protect non-infected badger populations. A recommendation was made that Government to work closely with Irish researchers in urgent field trials using BCG based vaccines to reduce tb infection in badgers, and that published RTA surveys should recommence for England and Wales.

Subject to the adoption of the above, and simultaneous with it, the group would recommend extra cattle testing - at the moment pre-movement - but with a feasibility of post- movement to be urgently evaluated. Farmers to be encouraged meanwhile to isolate and test all bought in cattle (not for slaughter) before they join the host herd. In parallel to the proposals, an urgent enquiry to be set up into the wider issue of 'badger population management'.

It was made clear to the chairman, that this draft Strategy came as a package, and was not to be 'cherry picked'. Delegates stressed that the word 'Simultaneous' was key to their proposals on a wide range of measures, all of which had been proved successful in the eradication of bTb, both in this country and elsewhere.

MEPs say - "Adopt the Precautionary Principle"

In a letter of support for the signatories of the MRVS plea to Margaret Beckett, members of the European Parliament's Environment and Agriculture committees, Robert Sturdy and Roger Helmer have called on government to "adopt the precautionary principle" on bovine Tb.

"The position of government is unsustainable. On health and environmental issues, the government and the European parliament rely on the precautionary principle. That is where risk is suspected, but cannot yet be proved or quantified, they take pre-emptive action to eliminate the possibility of harm"

"If that principle had been applied to bovine TB, badger culls would have been undertaken years ago. The disease would now be controlled or eliminated, and fewer badgers would have been culled than will now be necessary".

Mr. Sturdy and Mr. Helmer draw a comparison between the relationship 20 years ago between smoking and lung cancer, and currently bovine Tb and the reservoir of the disease in badgers:

"The evidence of a link is overwhelming. But it is possible - just about - to argue that it is not 100 percent proved. Government has turned the 'precautionary principle' on its head, and instead of responding to a clearly perceived risk, it has refused to act until it has 'scientific proof' of a link."

They describe the protests from the badger lobby as " looking increasingly threadbare and desperate."

And conclude "If the same logic had been applied to smoking, we should have seen many more deaths from lung cancer. And if government sticks to its position, we shall see hugely more damage to the Britsh dairy industry".

We agree.

In epidemiological circles the gold standard for 'causality' (or the perception of risk) is "Evans Postulates". Many of the Parliamentary questions (archived on this site) were directed to ascertain the extent to which 'Evans Postulates' had already been fulfilled. In the questioner's opinion, "Answers indicate that the key postulates are satisfied and provide powerful evidence of a causal link".

A 'Biological' Fence?

An 'old wive's tale' still practised in many country gardens uses a variation of biological scent marking to deter intruders. While the shelves of up-market garden centres may contain 'lion's dung' pellets, the carrot patches of rural gardens were given of dose of a home grown deterrent. The men of the family, (we're told it doesn't work with females) would urinate around the perimeter, to stop badgers digging up the carrots.

We have been given permission by its author to quote a BSc pilot study which used this principle, to determine if ' non-kin' badger scent, could be used in a similar way, i.e to deter other badgers not of the same social group.

Badgers are territorial, scent marking 'their' patch with a latrine or urine spray. They will fiercely defend this area and sometimes kill other badgers who try to enter. The trigger appears from the study to be the communal 'scent' from their excretions.

The researcher introduced faecal material to a badger latrine from a non-kin sett latrine several miles away. Adult badgers refused to use it and created a new latrine area. Only the 3 small cubs ventured near. Similar experiences with sett bedding, had been seen by researcher in a previous study. When a ball of new grass bedding was artificially scented, the badgers ignored it for 24 hours but if scented with non-kin badger scent they ignored it for at least 7 days, with the dominant male eventualy kicking it away from the sett entrance.

The researcher's conclusion was that non-kin badger scent was a powerful deterrent to incoming badgers not of the same social group.

"The scent of non-kin faeces is sufficient to deter a badger from entering its own latrine area, even if only temporarily, suggests it may be possible to exclude badgers from a particular area by using scent" .

The author saw possibilities for the use of their own scent in the translocation of badgers away from construction sites, and from undermining buildings. But the primary interest of this site is the transmission of tuberculosis, and on that subject the researcher concluded:

"As badgers have been very strongly linked with the spread of Bovine tuberculosis, the implications for this (research) are obvious. If this effect could be reproduced chemically and commercially, it may be possible to segregate cows and badgers thus minimising the spread of Tb between the species. Goman et al's research (1984 - Distinctive badger social group scent) could be expanded in the hope of isolating the particular chemical(s) which, in sufficient quantities could be used by farmers as a deterrent."

The weak link in all strategies concerning the eradication of Tb from badgers is their ancestral home. The sett has acquired a Grade 1 listing, and is allowed to remain intact - a time bomb to reinfect incoming badgers. Artificial scent marking may have a place here, as it may in the protection of farm buildings.

Our grateful thanks for the paper.

Damping down.

Irish trials in conjunction with our own Professor Glyn Hewinson at VLA (Veterinary Laboratories Agency) have been working on BSG 'vaccines' to damp down transmission of tb in badgers. It is our understanding that the work may be ready for publication in early May.

Mr. Hewinson explained:
"Sixty potential vaccines have been tested on mice and guinea pigs, 10 in cattle. The most promising is based on boosting the immune response primed by BCG, with another type of vaccine. BCG might work well with badgers, because although it doesn't prevent primary infection in the lungs, it does prevent Tb spreading to other organs. This may reduce the chance of badgers spreading Tb to cattle and each other".

While any 'damping down' of Tb transmission is welcome, one might question Prof. Hewinson's assurance that the complex vaccine "does not prevent primary infection in the lungs" of the candidate badgers. Thus transmission via bite wounding, territorial aggression and in the confines of the sett would still presumably occur. Only the urinary / intestinal route may be protected.

We have quoted from Captain Ben's PQ's (all 500 are archived) and certainly any reduction on the 300,000 units of Tb bacterium contained in 1 ml of urine from a badger with kidney lesions is good news. But those primary lung lesions are not going to halt the spread of Tb throughout the badger population (especially from an infected sow to her cubs in the confines of the sett) and the animal will still suffer a long drawn out, and increasingly public death.

And don't forget the cats. Or the deer or...... any other tuberculosis ' spillover' casualties.

UK : US Special Relationship - Sometimes.

We've touched on other country's problems with bTb and their control of any wildlife reservoir in several posts on this site, the most recent being "Tb in Michigan - "If we pull away and do nothing it will only get worse". (archived 3/4/2005)

In that post we were delighted to see that Michigan had taken development of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) technology further along than their 'Light Cycler' . In March 2001 this machine was offered to the UK Government to rapidly diagnose FMD on site. One individual went as far as ordering one at a cost of £20,000, but Government intervened to prevent this without providing the industry or even the most generous benefactor with an explanation as to why they had refused it.

This 'magic box' designed for battlefield diagnosis of biological agents, had been used successfully in FMD outbreaks elsewhere in the world but in the UK, was turned down in favour of 'carnage by computer'. But a British version developed by an offshoot of the MoD Porton Down - Enigma Diagnostics - was on the drawing board, and we've touched on that in the post "2005 - A Good Idea".

Both the Shadow agriculture minister Owen Paterson MP, and the National Beef Association are keen to incorporate the PCR in Tb strategy.

Now fast forward to April 1st 2005, when Defra began to:

"Assess research applications for projects, which will conduct a reveiew of all current PCR assays available for Mycobacterium Tuberculosis complex identification and assess their cost / benefit analysis for incorporation into routine Tb testing".

But they are " not currently conducting research using portable PCR laboratories for the detection of Tb in badgers. But recent collaboration bewteen VLA and Enigma Diagnostics is evaluating a prototype machine for detecting BVD and FMD, and there are plans to evaluate it for use in detecting m.bovis in the field - in the future".

No urgency then?

Our comments on these little gems are as follows:

* As the Blair / Bush relationship is so close at the moment, instead of looking to Iraq, look to Michigan where the 'assessment' described above was being used in 2001. Michigan were using PCR to speed up diagnosis of cattle Tb lesions ahead of laboratory diagnosis 4 years ago.

*In 2005, we understand they have developed the technology for use in the environment - ie. further than a candidate host which in the wild, may be difficult to capture. . www.maes.msu.edu/articles/bovine2005.pdf

*Defra will look at 'all current assays'. Does the word 'all' inlude technology beyond the UK?

When technology is available which will add to knowledge and speed up clearance of targetted sources of Tb, the bland, woolly phrases used by Defra could be seen as further evidence of Ministerial inertia.

Could the 'special relationship' (or unholy alliance - depending on your point of view) which saw us invade Iraq holding tightly to the hand of George Bush, extend to a sharing of technological achievements in the field of infectious disease control?

We hope so.

Bradshaw asks for Help?

After a 'constructive' meeting with an NFU delegation, vice chairman Meurig Raymond told Farmers Guardian, that Mr. Bradshaw had asked the Union to construct a proposal for controlling bTb which he could present to ministers.

Optimists may see this as a sign that Ministers may be finally be prepared to address the issue which they fear has become so divisive that it may jeopardise the success of their 'Animal Health and Welfare Strategy'. The more realistic among us would say 'There's an an election coming'. But we would agree that government's commitment to 'Animal Health and Welfare' has been distinctly lacking on this issue. And if the industry now ignores Captain Birdseye's plea - it will be used as stick to beat them with at a later date.

Meanwhile it buys a little more time, will probably be 'cherry picked' rather than used as a complete strategy and will ensure several thousand more livestock farmers leave the industry.

Meetings will take place next week, in which veterinarians, conservationists and farmers will draw up a common strategy which will include cattle movement and/or testing controls and the targeted culling of infected wildlife.

Mr. Raymond said the Minister seemed genuinely concerned to find a way through the situation, as it was undermining the ' parnership' approach. He said "Farmers will play their part in eradicating Tb but we need a commitment from Government to do the same, in partnership with us. We desperately need a resolution and an end to this scandalous situation, before Tb destroys the cattle sector".

That cosy word 'partner' again. Did Meurig not realise that Defra had already awarded the NFBG 'Partner of the Year'?

Two's company - three's a crowd.

Peers Attack Tb 'Strategy'.

Joining the ranks of eminent critics of government's 'Policy for Going Nowhere - Slowly' on bTb are several peers of the Realm. They too have realised that the prevarication has produced no winners. Not cattle, the ecology, the taxpayer and certainly not the badgers. An employment opportunity - maybe.

In a House of Lords debate last week organised by Lady Mar, Defra's Lord Whitty was faced with a barrage of adjectives describing current non-policy on bTB, and they were neither supportive nor complentary.

Lady Mar asked government to reconsider its policy on Tb, in the light of concerns expressed by over 300 members of the RCVS (Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) about the spread of the disease. She pointed that vets in private practises and government vets were 'desperate' to be allowed to play a part in reducing, if not completely eliminating bTb from the environment.

"Government policies prevent them from doing so. Talking shops and inappropriate scientific research do nothing to halt the relentless march of the bacterium through the countryside" said Lady Mar. She continued, "The situation is so serious that action is required now. It is not good enough to tell farmers that they must take measures to ensure biosecurity when some of the measures are exremely expensive, and particularly where badgers are concerned - virtually useless".

Lord Soulsby said that there was sufficent evidence from previous trials including the Irish 4 county and Thornbury, to support a policy which included culling infected badgers.

From Lord Plumb: "It is surely now beyond doubt that badgers infected with bTb are directly involved with the transmission of that terrible disease" .

And Baroness Byford, describing the Krebs trials asked "Why wait another 18 months - or more, when the trials are already flawed? Further delay is not an option. We must come up with an effective policy to deliver a healthy wildlife population living in harmony with an equally healthy cattle population".

And Lady Byford said she was 'flabberghasted' by the wording of the new 'Strategic' document, and asked if government had a strategy.

From behind his ministerial barracades and in the face of this noble onslaught, Lord Whitty admitted that bTb was undoubtedly the UK's biggest animal health problem, which for most farmers was "distressing" and for some " ruinous".

He refuted the view that government had done nothing about it.

Spent shed loads of taxpayers cash - yes.
Allowed an seriously infectious zoonotic disease to become endemic in some of the UK's best loved wildlife - yes.
Ignored the advice of grass roots SVS employees on the best way of avoiding transmission - yes.
Re-interpreted a Law of the land, and decided not to issue badger culling licenses under any circumstances after a £1 million donation - yes.
Ignored the doubling of bTb incidence in the cattle herds in the year following that contempt for parliamentary procedure - yes.
Predicting a 20 percent increase in cattle Tb under 'current government strategies' - yes.
Fulfilling that prediction - with bells. The increase has been 25 percent - absolutely.
Allowing this bacterium to be spread over Britain's countryside, putting at risk anything which comes into contact with it -Yes.
Putting at risk Britain's trading status - Yup, he's achieved that too.

Lord Whitty can be extremely proud of his achievements.

No-one else is.

Capricorn. Cattle Defender, Protector and Guardian?

Our Northern correspondant, Matthew 2 has recollected for us a tale of 'biological warfare', waged by his father on tuberculous badgers prior to the Ministry clearances in 1953. He tells us that in the late 1930's and 40's it was common to run a goat (preferably a Billy) with a herd of cattle "to protect them" from badgers, and as a child can remember his father doing just that. He also remembers that their cattle did not get Tb.

The theory is that the goat would do what goats are famous for and kick seven bells out of any 'intruder' into the grazing area occupied by 'his' cattle. (Defra vets, RPA eartag inspectors, animal activists with wire cutters? We like that!!) In short, he would act as a the herd's guardian, sentinel, and protector.

We've heard of this tale in connection with the 'protection' of sheep flocks, where a goat (or an alpaca) has been introduced to deter foxes, badgers and dogs at lambing time, but how feasible is it in the context of disease control?

Imagine dear readers, Defra vets wearing 'green biological warfare' suits, (disposable, and complying with EU Waste Management rules of course - last seen when their occupants were slaughtering millions of cattle in FMD) delivering (Tb tested) goats onto cattle farms. It would be popular with Captain 'Birdseye' Ben, (please note, not 'Rear Admiral' Ben- some of our more imaginative readers seem to have a strange aversion to the Fisheries minister's nickname) who having been paid by the PAL piper, does not have to mention the word' badger' in the same breath as 'tuberculosis'. But what of this sorry, suffering creature? Well in the face of Capricorn on the warpath, his territory would be severely curtailed, his foraging limited and his numbers drastically cut. In short, as with Bradshaw's 'Fence them out' biosecurity advice, he starves.
And nobody gets their hands dirty.

Anything's got to be better than deluging the cattle farms with standstill notices, slaughter forms and endless 60 day '007' tests - who's going to get shot this month dearie? Defra's own predictions involve running up a bill with the Treasury of £2 billion over 10 years, doing absolutely nothing about the exposure of not only cattle but deer, domestic pets and ramblers to - tuberculosis.

Bring on the goats?

The Luck of the Irish...

...cows that is. Irish cattle have some protection from tb infected wildlife, but on their horizons may be a little bit more.

While the Republic of Ireland was carrying out their very successful and well reported 4 County badger culling trial, they continued with a more targeted form of Reactive culling, possibly in such a manner suggested by Prof. Godfray (see posts below).

When a farm goes under tb restriction in the R of I, it is our understanding that depending on how many reactors are involved, badger culling is initiated anyway. Criteria for inclusion in the 4 county trial was '1 confirmed reactor cow' . This compared with the Reference area where outbreaks described as having '4 or more reactors disclosed at standard interpretation of the intradermal skin test', qualified for badger removals.

But in the rest of the Republic, provided cattle transmission can be excluded, badger removals are initiated anyway, if 2 or more cattle reactors are found at standard interpretation.

Building on their success in Monaghan, Kilkenny, Cork and Donegal, we hear that officials in the Republic are now considering 'population management' in an effort to damp down Tb in the country's badgers.

We drew your attention to the exponential growth in the UK badger population most recently in our post:
"Total Protection - Sense or Sentimentalism" (19/2/2005) with extracts from Dr. Willie Stanton's research into badger numbers, which he found had increased over 40 years from what the late Ernest Neal described as 'abundant' (1 per sq. km. in the late 50's) to 37 per sq. km in 1999. We cannot guess how Ernest Neal would have described that number - 'teeming' , 'overcrowded', 'excessive' or 'saturated' perhaps? But we understand that the Republic are considering a 'population management' excercise in an attempt to reduce the reservoir of Tb in their badgers both to prevent its overspill into cattle and other species, and for the health and welfare of the badgers themselves.

Under the terms of the Berne convention this reduction can be up to 20 percent, and here the Irish have a distinct advantage over the 'devolved' UK. Mountain, moorland, lakes and forests will account for a small percentage of badgers in a much larger area of available land, while clearances on land where cattle are farmed will be a great deal higher - but still total less than 20 percent overall.

For the sake of English cattle, may we reclaim Snowdonia and the Cairngorms?

It's all in the Name

A couple of comments on this site have taken us to task for referring to the Minister for Fisheries and Conservation, the Right Honourable Ben Bradshaw MP, who presides over Defra's non-policy for bovine Tb as 'Rear-Admiral'.

A dictionary definition describes this rank as "Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Commander of the Fleet or High ranking officer". We would point out that the term was awarded to Mr. Bradshaw by Britain's fishermen, in recognition of his outstanding leadership of their fleet.

Like the cattle farmers who edit this site, the fisherman (who at least are mentioned in Bradshaw's job title) are not sure to which destination his leadership is taking them. Destruction or Oblivion?
Quite apt really we thought.

What on earth did you think we meant?