The 4th International Conference to discuss mycobacterium bovis was held at Dublin Castle, Dublin 22 - 26th August.
Delegates from all over the world met to attend lectures and workshops. From the UK, our own Debbie Reynolds would have been able to tell attendees how Defra was not tackling the problem in the wildlife, and could remind them of the exponential growth of bTB problems they could expect, should other countries decide on such a one sided policy of only cattle slaughter.
VLA was represented, as was the State Veterinary Service. But conspicuous by their absence ( so we are told) were any members of the Independent Scientific Group (ISG). From their lofty perch as Tb supremos, shields and arch protectors of the Minister of Fisheries and Conservation - and having decided cattle are the problem, the whole problem and the only problem - one may assume they felt the whole debate was beneath them.
No papers have been published from this conference yet, but workshop details and lecturers involved can be viewed at: www.4icmb.org
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Friday, August 19, 2005
1 down, 56 percent to go...
In our Parliamentary questions on the 'efficiency' or otherwise of cage trapping, Minister Ben Bradshaw gave the astonishing answer that of traps used in the RBCT, a staggering 57 percent had been 'interfered with', and 12 per cent were 'missing'.
So nearly 70 percent of the target traps had not caught anything.
Before the 'trial' started farmers and other scientists (notably Prof. Stephen Harris) warned of the effect of the RBCT's high profile, and suggested the predictable result would be 'polarised opinions' and violence.
Western Morning News reported today the outcome of one such confrontation. The farmer had pulled out from the RBCT after suffering damage, intimidation and trespass on a 500 acre area and had erected signs to that effect. The ability to read the notice obviously had little effect on animal activists, who cut wire fences and allowed 30 cattle to stray from the farm.
One such individual, having been convicted last year of similar criminal damage to badger traps, failed to appear in court at Liskeard to face charges related to this farm.
That's 1 percent of the criminal damage incurred to traps in this farce of a 'trial'. What about the cost of the other 56 percent?
Full story at:Western Morning News
So nearly 70 percent of the target traps had not caught anything.
Before the 'trial' started farmers and other scientists (notably Prof. Stephen Harris) warned of the effect of the RBCT's high profile, and suggested the predictable result would be 'polarised opinions' and violence.
Western Morning News reported today the outcome of one such confrontation. The farmer had pulled out from the RBCT after suffering damage, intimidation and trespass on a 500 acre area and had erected signs to that effect. The ability to read the notice obviously had little effect on animal activists, who cut wire fences and allowed 30 cattle to stray from the farm.
One such individual, having been convicted last year of similar criminal damage to badger traps, failed to appear in court at Liskeard to face charges related to this farm.
That's 1 percent of the criminal damage incurred to traps in this farce of a 'trial'. What about the cost of the other 56 percent?
Full story at:Western Morning News
Monday, August 15, 2005
Bradshaw's 'Leg Restraints'.
It's August so a nautical flavour to go with our Minister for Fisheries' bucket and spade in the post below. Bouyed up with the Irish badger trials results which cleared cattle Tb by up to 96 percent, our Ben is casting his net for a reliable culling method for old stripey. Cy-mag is OK he says for moles, rats and rabbits, but for badgers 'it's cruel'. Why he doesn't explain.
Obviously John Bourne's cage traps are disaster, 57 percent having suffered 'interference' and 12 percent went AWOL. Not exactly a clearance then was it John? So a boat-trip to Ireland for our Ben had him enthusing about what he euphemistically calls 'leg restraints'.
This is a slick and skewed description of what used to be called a 'snare'. The only thing in its favour is that any animal caught in one is unlikely to be removed easily when alive. With a trap, a badger becomes a Tb takeaway. It's trussed up, can't bite and can be translocated (rescued?) and released any where. But on every other count 'leg restraints' or snares are vile.
And imagine a photograph of a badger so 'restrained' on the front page of a tabloid.
Ireland may like them - we do not. What with an RTA survey which was distinguished more by its omissions than its content, (see post below) and now our Ben's unbounded enthusiasm for snares, one could be forgiven for thinking that he deliberately wants farmers and badger groups polarised. Surely not?
Anyway, on this tack and trying to gently steer the Minister to use the following wind of Treasury pressure, the NFU on Radio 4's Farming Today programme, (Friday 12th. and Saturday 13th. August) while explaining that culling badgers was illegal, said that the tools for the job and the expertise to use them had not yet been lost to the countryside. They told how badger social groups tend to heave out sick or old individuals, who then roam and excavate single hole sets, away from the main group. This was confirmed by the Minister in parliamentary questions (archived) for which, as ever we are most grateful.
It was into those sets ( in past times) farmers would control population densities by gassing from a tractor exhaust, or stationary engine. As with deer management, undertaken by our nautically challenged Minister last autumn, the national badger population was kept under control and more importantly - healthy. The speakers insisted that any control method considered, should be totally under Defra's control.
They also reminded listeners that tuberculosis spill over from infected badgers, had already been recorded in domestic cats (19 in one county) and a dog (report will be written up in Vet. Record this month).
The programmes can be listened to on the following link:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/farmingtoday/index.shtml
Obviously John Bourne's cage traps are disaster, 57 percent having suffered 'interference' and 12 percent went AWOL. Not exactly a clearance then was it John? So a boat-trip to Ireland for our Ben had him enthusing about what he euphemistically calls 'leg restraints'.
This is a slick and skewed description of what used to be called a 'snare'. The only thing in its favour is that any animal caught in one is unlikely to be removed easily when alive. With a trap, a badger becomes a Tb takeaway. It's trussed up, can't bite and can be translocated (rescued?) and released any where. But on every other count 'leg restraints' or snares are vile.
And imagine a photograph of a badger so 'restrained' on the front page of a tabloid.
Ireland may like them - we do not. What with an RTA survey which was distinguished more by its omissions than its content, (see post below) and now our Ben's unbounded enthusiasm for snares, one could be forgiven for thinking that he deliberately wants farmers and badger groups polarised. Surely not?
Anyway, on this tack and trying to gently steer the Minister to use the following wind of Treasury pressure, the NFU on Radio 4's Farming Today programme, (Friday 12th. and Saturday 13th. August) while explaining that culling badgers was illegal, said that the tools for the job and the expertise to use them had not yet been lost to the countryside. They told how badger social groups tend to heave out sick or old individuals, who then roam and excavate single hole sets, away from the main group. This was confirmed by the Minister in parliamentary questions (archived) for which, as ever we are most grateful.
It was into those sets ( in past times) farmers would control population densities by gassing from a tractor exhaust, or stationary engine. As with deer management, undertaken by our nautically challenged Minister last autumn, the national badger population was kept under control and more importantly - healthy. The speakers insisted that any control method considered, should be totally under Defra's control.
They also reminded listeners that tuberculosis spill over from infected badgers, had already been recorded in domestic cats (19 in one county) and a dog (report will be written up in Vet. Record this month).
The programmes can be listened to on the following link:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/farmingtoday/index.shtml
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Throwing Crumbs
With MP's safely out of earshot on the longest recess in parliamentary history, our Minister for Conservation and Fisheries announced (at the eleventh hour) that only 1 in 7 badgers picked up in RTA's have Tb."Even in those parts of the country worst affected by Bovine Tb, most badgers test negative for the disease. They also show no clear correlation between levels of Tb in cattle and badgers". And then our Minister, Rear Admiral Bradshaw, packed his bucket and spade and disappeared.
The crude and wholly unsatisfactory 'survey', which again left out much more than it contained can be viewed at: www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050803a.htm
Going back 25 years the percentage of badger carcasses found to be positive for TB after a badger removal operation rose steadily, from 15 percent in 1977, dropping briefly during the Clean Ring strategy 1980 / 81 to 9 percent, before rising steadily to a staggering 27.9 percent of carcasses examined and cultered, in 1997.
So how may one ask, does our Minister arrive at 1 in 7 today? Well, he ignored all badgers picked up in the RBCT areas for starters. John Bourne is still guarding those results - his pension depends upon it. And the few that were collected over 4 years, were subjected to 'imprecise diagnostic tests'. Well that's pretty smart - don't seek and you won't find?
But our Minister has also overidden the Freedom of Information Act, invoking the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, as a reason for not disclosing postmortem results to farmers who report RTA badgers found near their land.
A Defra spokesman says "These Environmental Information Regulations cover a wide range of environmental information, as well as any measures or activities that may affect what is defined as environmental information."
Errr yes. I think we understand that.
He continues, explaining that badger postmortem results "Clearly fall within the scope of the definition, and so the request must be dealt with under EIS 2004, and following careful consideration, I regret to inform you that we have decided not to disclose the information".
This to a farmer who found a dead badger and reported it for collection. At least it was collected, many are not.
More about this elusive and convenient antidote to the Freedom of Information Act can be found at:
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/pubaccess/index.htm
That was Defra's answer at the end of May, and in June they still pointedly refused to release any information on RTA results, citing 'illegal culling' for the delay. In fact most of the main stream media reported Defra officials as saying "They feared the results would encourage farmers to take the law into their own hands and illegally clear out badgers". The implication a month ago was that the full results of the seven county study, when RBCT areas were included, when badgers dead on farm land and in buildings were included and when comprehensive spoligotyping and cultures were undertaken - showed a whole lot more than '1 in 7', that our Minister for Conservation announced this week.
The actual 'report' ( if that is what it can be called) does state that the 'survey' is not comprehensive and "it is better to interpret the prevalence estimates relatively, rather than absolutely". This is because the survey used "imprecise diagnostic tests and a limited number of badgers collected".
This report could be described as 'throwing crumbs' to the peasants. "You wanted an RTA survey - here it is." RTA information, if undertaken comprehensively and used carefully is vital in getting ahead of pockets of disease, but this...?
One could ask why this exercise in futility was ever undertaken at all when the full results, nutured by the chosen few of the ISG, were available all the time. Or are they destined to remain concealed behind the veil of 'Environmental Information Regulations 2004'.?
The crude and wholly unsatisfactory 'survey', which again left out much more than it contained can be viewed at: www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050803a.htm
Going back 25 years the percentage of badger carcasses found to be positive for TB after a badger removal operation rose steadily, from 15 percent in 1977, dropping briefly during the Clean Ring strategy 1980 / 81 to 9 percent, before rising steadily to a staggering 27.9 percent of carcasses examined and cultered, in 1997.
So how may one ask, does our Minister arrive at 1 in 7 today? Well, he ignored all badgers picked up in the RBCT areas for starters. John Bourne is still guarding those results - his pension depends upon it. And the few that were collected over 4 years, were subjected to 'imprecise diagnostic tests'. Well that's pretty smart - don't seek and you won't find?
But our Minister has also overidden the Freedom of Information Act, invoking the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, as a reason for not disclosing postmortem results to farmers who report RTA badgers found near their land.
A Defra spokesman says "These Environmental Information Regulations cover a wide range of environmental information, as well as any measures or activities that may affect what is defined as environmental information."
Errr yes. I think we understand that.
He continues, explaining that badger postmortem results "Clearly fall within the scope of the definition, and so the request must be dealt with under EIS 2004, and following careful consideration, I regret to inform you that we have decided not to disclose the information".
This to a farmer who found a dead badger and reported it for collection. At least it was collected, many are not.
More about this elusive and convenient antidote to the Freedom of Information Act can be found at:
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/pubaccess/index.htm
That was Defra's answer at the end of May, and in June they still pointedly refused to release any information on RTA results, citing 'illegal culling' for the delay. In fact most of the main stream media reported Defra officials as saying "They feared the results would encourage farmers to take the law into their own hands and illegally clear out badgers". The implication a month ago was that the full results of the seven county study, when RBCT areas were included, when badgers dead on farm land and in buildings were included and when comprehensive spoligotyping and cultures were undertaken - showed a whole lot more than '1 in 7', that our Minister for Conservation announced this week.
The actual 'report' ( if that is what it can be called) does state that the 'survey' is not comprehensive and "it is better to interpret the prevalence estimates relatively, rather than absolutely". This is because the survey used "imprecise diagnostic tests and a limited number of badgers collected".
This report could be described as 'throwing crumbs' to the peasants. "You wanted an RTA survey - here it is." RTA information, if undertaken comprehensively and used carefully is vital in getting ahead of pockets of disease, but this...?
One could ask why this exercise in futility was ever undertaken at all when the full results, nutured by the chosen few of the ISG, were available all the time. Or are they destined to remain concealed behind the veil of 'Environmental Information Regulations 2004'.?
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Lay testing moves a step nearer...
In a press release issued 25/07/2005 Defra announced the start of a pilot scheme to assess 'lay testers' carrrying out cattle skin tuberculin tests.
State Veterinary Service Animal Health Officers, under direct veterinary supervision will take part in two pilot schemes to begin next month. The tests are expected to involve up to 11,000 cattle and will be subject to veterinary inspection of both innoculation procedure and interpretation of results. This pilot scheme follows the 'consultation' excercise carried out in 2003.
Defra are not expecting a drop in demand any time soon then.....
More on: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050725b.htm
State Veterinary Service Animal Health Officers, under direct veterinary supervision will take part in two pilot schemes to begin next month. The tests are expected to involve up to 11,000 cattle and will be subject to veterinary inspection of both innoculation procedure and interpretation of results. This pilot scheme follows the 'consultation' excercise carried out in 2003.
Defra are not expecting a drop in demand any time soon then.....
More on: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050725b.htm
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Industry Strategy - update.
Last week representatives from all the main farming and veterinary organisations met in Exeter to discuss the draft NFU Strategy paper, presented to Mr. Bradshaw and launched at the Royal Show in July.
Commenting on the proposals, which contained a 'complete toolkit' of options - some of which were snuck in by Defra (see our post Kite Flying or Stitch-up) - the group agreed on a few amendments. These were outlined by Anthony Gibson, SW Regional Director of the NFU:
The group endorses the NFU's proposals to Defra on badger control, but with the suggestions that the strategy should be applied to infected badger social groups rather than to wider areas, for maximum public and political acceptibility and cost effectiveness. And that culling operations should only be carried out by fully trained farmers organised and supervised by Defra.
The aim of the meeting was to agree common ground between all the organisations involved and to: Encourage their representatives to sign up to a single common strategy and action plan.
It was also proposed that as a separate excercise, a further badger population survey was undertaken covering densities as well as numbers, to inform a wider debate about badger management.
It was suggested that PCR technology may now be used to target infected populations, a point vehemently and continually denied by Mr. Bradshaw and government scientists, on the basis that 'no such test exists'. As Michigan have been using PCR for 5 years, what they probably mean by that is 'we haven't got ours sorted out yet'.
But Shadow Minister, Owen Paterson MP has been on a fact finding mission to Warwick University where Professor Elizabeth Wellington has refined PCR to a degree that it will identify Johnnes (m.avium paratuberculosis) in cattle slurry. And as we pointed out in our posting Left Hand and Right Hand, (below) Defra are funding the study.
Mr. Paterson told reporters from Farmers Guardian that during his visit, where he was accompanied by some eminent veterinary professors and bTb experts, Professor Wellington advised the group that the test could probably be applied to diagnose bovine tb in live cattle and in badgers and their environment. She had refined the technology and with her colleagues, developed a 'simple, robust and rapid system for detection of M. Bovis bacterium in infected farm areas, with high sensitivety.'
"Not only is the test fast, with two operators being able to process some 100 setts per week, it is inexpensive and can be used to provide quantitative estimates of infection. Professor Wellington estimates that a mobile laboratory could be equipped for as little as £10,000", Mr. Paterson said.
He has written to the Minister for Fisheries and Conservation, Mr. Bradshaw, urging him to commission a field trial to establish the effectiveness of PCR in the environment around badger setts, and also suggests a parallel trial into diagnosis of Tb in nose and throat swabs from cattle sharing the same habitat should also be set in motion. Mr. Paterson concluded "This technology could provide incontrovertible evidence upon which to base a programme of selective culling of positively identified infected badgers".
£10,000. Not a lot is it? Equivalent to about 7.5 dead cattle. And as Defra have slaughtered 40 percent more cattle in the year to May 2005 than they did in May 2004 and are killing nearly 100 per day - one could say it would be value for money.
Commenting on the proposals, which contained a 'complete toolkit' of options - some of which were snuck in by Defra (see our post Kite Flying or Stitch-up) - the group agreed on a few amendments. These were outlined by Anthony Gibson, SW Regional Director of the NFU:
The group endorses the NFU's proposals to Defra on badger control, but with the suggestions that the strategy should be applied to infected badger social groups rather than to wider areas, for maximum public and political acceptibility and cost effectiveness. And that culling operations should only be carried out by fully trained farmers organised and supervised by Defra.
The aim of the meeting was to agree common ground between all the organisations involved and to: Encourage their representatives to sign up to a single common strategy and action plan.
It was also proposed that as a separate excercise, a further badger population survey was undertaken covering densities as well as numbers, to inform a wider debate about badger management.
It was suggested that PCR technology may now be used to target infected populations, a point vehemently and continually denied by Mr. Bradshaw and government scientists, on the basis that 'no such test exists'. As Michigan have been using PCR for 5 years, what they probably mean by that is 'we haven't got ours sorted out yet'.
But Shadow Minister, Owen Paterson MP has been on a fact finding mission to Warwick University where Professor Elizabeth Wellington has refined PCR to a degree that it will identify Johnnes (m.avium paratuberculosis) in cattle slurry. And as we pointed out in our posting Left Hand and Right Hand, (below) Defra are funding the study.
Mr. Paterson told reporters from Farmers Guardian that during his visit, where he was accompanied by some eminent veterinary professors and bTb experts, Professor Wellington advised the group that the test could probably be applied to diagnose bovine tb in live cattle and in badgers and their environment. She had refined the technology and with her colleagues, developed a 'simple, robust and rapid system for detection of M. Bovis bacterium in infected farm areas, with high sensitivety.'
"Not only is the test fast, with two operators being able to process some 100 setts per week, it is inexpensive and can be used to provide quantitative estimates of infection. Professor Wellington estimates that a mobile laboratory could be equipped for as little as £10,000", Mr. Paterson said.
He has written to the Minister for Fisheries and Conservation, Mr. Bradshaw, urging him to commission a field trial to establish the effectiveness of PCR in the environment around badger setts, and also suggests a parallel trial into diagnosis of Tb in nose and throat swabs from cattle sharing the same habitat should also be set in motion. Mr. Paterson concluded "This technology could provide incontrovertible evidence upon which to base a programme of selective culling of positively identified infected badgers".
£10,000. Not a lot is it? Equivalent to about 7.5 dead cattle. And as Defra have slaughtered 40 percent more cattle in the year to May 2005 than they did in May 2004 and are killing nearly 100 per day - one could say it would be value for money.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck....
....and quacks like a duck then Defra's Animal Health Spokespersons are likely to say" they are unable to confirm its ' identity' ".
In a curious follow up to our post below (Spillover into Pigs) political editor Alistair Driver, this week attempted to delve further into the murk of this case for Farmers' Guardian.
Despite the mischievious headline of last weeks' report, the owner of the pigs, Mr. Appleton confirms our post and says he is 'infuriated', by suggestions that the pigs became infected after they drank milk from a local farm.
"It is in no way linked to milk" he said, " The cattle were tested for Tb before the pigs contracted it and were negative. They were tested afterwards to make sure, and again the result was negative. That shows that the milk cannot have given the pigs Tb".
It might be clear to local vets, and most other people - test sources and eliminate them...but remember the duck.
Mr. Appleton explained that the vet who had examined the pigs in March concluded that the site and severity of lesions in head and neck pointed to its having consumed something with Tb.
"There are 10 badger sets on this small holding [in Professor Harris' methodology that's 80 - 100 badgers] and infection is rife amongst the local population."
Mr. Appleton thinks that a sick badger was turfed out by its social group, made its way to a refuge in his pig barn under gaps in the door, and died. He points at that Tb causes a long drawn out and painful death, a point which "these do-gooders in London" fail to understand.
"If you had a cat infected with such a disease, you wouldn't let it die such a horrible death" he said.
But true to form, the Animal Health spokesperson in Defra was sticking to the party line on this one, reiterating last week's damaging, misleading [and eliminated] headline:
"Cattle on this [and a neighbouring] farm have tested negative for bovine Tb. We are looking at all possible sources of infection including unpasteurised milk and wildlife involvement. We do not yet have a definite origin".
One could be churlish and say that if Mr. Appleton is right, the 'origin' has probably been consumed. And having tested the cattle - twice - milk should have been eliminated 3 months ago.
But never overestimate Defra's ability to recognise a duck.
In a curious follow up to our post below (Spillover into Pigs) political editor Alistair Driver, this week attempted to delve further into the murk of this case for Farmers' Guardian.
Despite the mischievious headline of last weeks' report, the owner of the pigs, Mr. Appleton confirms our post and says he is 'infuriated', by suggestions that the pigs became infected after they drank milk from a local farm.
"It is in no way linked to milk" he said, " The cattle were tested for Tb before the pigs contracted it and were negative. They were tested afterwards to make sure, and again the result was negative. That shows that the milk cannot have given the pigs Tb".
It might be clear to local vets, and most other people - test sources and eliminate them...but remember the duck.
Mr. Appleton explained that the vet who had examined the pigs in March concluded that the site and severity of lesions in head and neck pointed to its having consumed something with Tb.
"There are 10 badger sets on this small holding [in Professor Harris' methodology that's 80 - 100 badgers] and infection is rife amongst the local population."
Mr. Appleton thinks that a sick badger was turfed out by its social group, made its way to a refuge in his pig barn under gaps in the door, and died. He points at that Tb causes a long drawn out and painful death, a point which "these do-gooders in London" fail to understand.
"If you had a cat infected with such a disease, you wouldn't let it die such a horrible death" he said.
But true to form, the Animal Health spokesperson in Defra was sticking to the party line on this one, reiterating last week's damaging, misleading [and eliminated] headline:
"Cattle on this [and a neighbouring] farm have tested negative for bovine Tb. We are looking at all possible sources of infection including unpasteurised milk and wildlife involvement. We do not yet have a definite origin".
One could be churlish and say that if Mr. Appleton is right, the 'origin' has probably been consumed. And having tested the cattle - twice - milk should have been eliminated 3 months ago.
But never overestimate Defra's ability to recognise a duck.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Nail up the Cat flap...........
Last week both Radio 5 Live, and the Daily Mail carried the story of a Wiltshire badger who 'burgled' the home of a pensioner at 1 o'clock in the morning, and is now 'in custody'.
Now one could be extremely cynical, and comment that having telephoned 999, the pensioner was somewhat more than lucky to get the attention of the police within minutes, to sort out her intruder. But that is another blog, another day.
She was watching television in her Swindon semi, when sounds of footsteps, overturned furniture and scuffles from the first floor led her to dial 999. Two police officers arrived and went straight upstairs, truncheons drawn to apprehend the intruder - and met a badger.
Not equipped with a jemmy to prise open the door, it had apparently gained access through the cat flap, trundled upstairs and attempted to create a nest in the airing cupboard before exploring the pensioner's bedroom. Everything in the airing cupboard had been turned upside down, and the furniture in the bedroom upended as the badger bumbled around, finally attempting escape by hurling itself at the bedroom window, which it broke.
The police officers were at a loss as to what to do with the animal, so called in the 'expertise' from the local animal 'sanctuary'. The badger was captured and is now safely behind bars before being 'released back into the wild'. (Your place or mine?)
Nice story? Many more questions than answers I think.
Radio 5's observations were that the badger was a large adult, with many scars and wounds on his back and sides from fighting and had 'probably been excluded from its social group'. When questioned as to his 'treatment', the reply was that the badger would be 'returned to the wild, when he was recovered enough to defend himself'. The Daily Mail's picture of the animal in the capture cage showed an adult with scars beneath his eye and behind his ears. But more worrying was the 'hedgehog' appearance of his face. Fat, glossy and bushy tailed with a glint in his eye, he was not. His eyes were sunken, and his face narrow and hollow.
To have arrived in a surburban semi in the middle of the night indicates a badger population density which had excluded this animal from its 'natural' habitat. And what is its fate? To be 'mended' and returned to 'the wild', which means fighting his corner - and losing - all over gain.
Where is this vague place - 'the wild'?
Anywhere within 30 miles of the house in which he sort shelter? And straight into a resident established population - of badgers.
This area of Wiltshire is part of a Krebs triplet. bTb is endemic in the badger population.
Has the householder been warned? Has she re laundered all her clothes from that 'upturned airing cupboard' , and her carpets and bedding in the appropriate bio secure way to neutralise any m.bovis from a thoroughly stressed out scarred, thin, disorientated badger?
And has she nailed up that cat flap?
Now one could be extremely cynical, and comment that having telephoned 999, the pensioner was somewhat more than lucky to get the attention of the police within minutes, to sort out her intruder. But that is another blog, another day.
She was watching television in her Swindon semi, when sounds of footsteps, overturned furniture and scuffles from the first floor led her to dial 999. Two police officers arrived and went straight upstairs, truncheons drawn to apprehend the intruder - and met a badger.
Not equipped with a jemmy to prise open the door, it had apparently gained access through the cat flap, trundled upstairs and attempted to create a nest in the airing cupboard before exploring the pensioner's bedroom. Everything in the airing cupboard had been turned upside down, and the furniture in the bedroom upended as the badger bumbled around, finally attempting escape by hurling itself at the bedroom window, which it broke.
The police officers were at a loss as to what to do with the animal, so called in the 'expertise' from the local animal 'sanctuary'. The badger was captured and is now safely behind bars before being 'released back into the wild'. (Your place or mine?)
Nice story? Many more questions than answers I think.
Radio 5's observations were that the badger was a large adult, with many scars and wounds on his back and sides from fighting and had 'probably been excluded from its social group'. When questioned as to his 'treatment', the reply was that the badger would be 'returned to the wild, when he was recovered enough to defend himself'. The Daily Mail's picture of the animal in the capture cage showed an adult with scars beneath his eye and behind his ears. But more worrying was the 'hedgehog' appearance of his face. Fat, glossy and bushy tailed with a glint in his eye, he was not. His eyes were sunken, and his face narrow and hollow.
To have arrived in a surburban semi in the middle of the night indicates a badger population density which had excluded this animal from its 'natural' habitat. And what is its fate? To be 'mended' and returned to 'the wild', which means fighting his corner - and losing - all over gain.
Where is this vague place - 'the wild'?
Anywhere within 30 miles of the house in which he sort shelter? And straight into a resident established population - of badgers.
This area of Wiltshire is part of a Krebs triplet. bTb is endemic in the badger population.
Has the householder been warned? Has she re laundered all her clothes from that 'upturned airing cupboard' , and her carpets and bedding in the appropriate bio secure way to neutralise any m.bovis from a thoroughly stressed out scarred, thin, disorientated badger?
And has she nailed up that cat flap?
Friday, July 15, 2005
Tb Spillover - Pigs
After our posts on the spill over of bTB into deer and cats (see archives) BBC News has reported that bTb has been found in a batches of Cornish pigs consigned to a small abattoir near Bodmin, in mid Cornwall.
Two pigs and some piglets from a farm near Bodmin, were sent for slaughter but were found to have lesions in head glands, but one had generalised infection in the carcass, said the owner.
Defra is 'monitoring' the farm, but said that it had no record of when it was last informed of bovine tb in pigs as it was not a notifiable disease in that species.
The owner of the pig farm Martin Appleton, told reporters for the BBC that he was sure infected badgers surrounding his farm were to blame. He has 10 setts on his smallholding.
"Badger proofing is impossible. We've got open sheds either side, it [a badger] will climb or tunnel, and a hungry badger will go where it wants".
Abattoir owner Vernon Lobb who has been the meat business all his life, said:
"I've never experienced it [ bovine tb] in a pig before".
Badger campaigner, Pauline Kidner commented;
"Culling an animal alone is not going to resolve the problem"
The International Society for Infectious Diseases who operate the ProMed website (www.promedmail.org) are more succinct.
The ProMed comment on this BBC report:
"Contrary to the views expressed by some interviewees, the spillover of bovine TB from the highly infected, dense badger population in Cornwall to other species wild and domestic, porcines included, should not be surprising.
Though laboratory confirmation on the species identity of the mycobacterium isolated from the affected pigs (lymphnodes) should be awaited, it may be assumed to be M.Bovis.
If the current situation continues, it might be only a matter of time before humans are infected......"
A postscript to this story was found in the Farmers Guardian (16th July) where their article carried the headline 'Milk linked to bovine tb in pigs..'.
Pretty strong stuff. The article quoted a 'Defra Animal Health spokesperson', (unamed but full of mischief - if not spite and spin)
"We are looking into the pigs consuming dairy by products as a possible source. It is possible that the milk came from infected cows.."
Now this story is not new. The pigs were found to have lesions in mid March. And in mid March, Defra's local SVS (State Veterinary Service) clanked into action. Samples were taken for culture, and sources checked. Mr. Appleton confirms that he sometimes fed very fresh milk (that's milk from a cow which has calved in the previous 4 days and not allowed into the food chain) to his Gloucester Old Spot rare breed pigs. SVS were informed and (in mid March) checked the health status of the supplying farm. And to make doubly sure. they tb tested the farm again.
It had a clear test before the incident, and it had a clear test afterwards.
The Defra spokesman added:"We may never find the source of the outbreak. It may never be proved one way or the other....".
But at the time of this statement, Defra's SVS arm had already re-tested the herd supplying occasional milk to the pigs. And it was clear. Twice.
So 'we' knew what the source was not, didn't 'we'?
Two pigs and some piglets from a farm near Bodmin, were sent for slaughter but were found to have lesions in head glands, but one had generalised infection in the carcass, said the owner.
Defra is 'monitoring' the farm, but said that it had no record of when it was last informed of bovine tb in pigs as it was not a notifiable disease in that species.
The owner of the pig farm Martin Appleton, told reporters for the BBC that he was sure infected badgers surrounding his farm were to blame. He has 10 setts on his smallholding.
"Badger proofing is impossible. We've got open sheds either side, it [a badger] will climb or tunnel, and a hungry badger will go where it wants".
Abattoir owner Vernon Lobb who has been the meat business all his life, said:
"I've never experienced it [ bovine tb] in a pig before".
Badger campaigner, Pauline Kidner commented;
"Culling an animal alone is not going to resolve the problem"
The International Society for Infectious Diseases who operate the ProMed website (www.promedmail.org) are more succinct.
The ProMed comment on this BBC report:
"Contrary to the views expressed by some interviewees, the spillover of bovine TB from the highly infected, dense badger population in Cornwall to other species wild and domestic, porcines included, should not be surprising.
Though laboratory confirmation on the species identity of the mycobacterium isolated from the affected pigs (lymphnodes) should be awaited, it may be assumed to be M.Bovis.
If the current situation continues, it might be only a matter of time before humans are infected......"
A postscript to this story was found in the Farmers Guardian (16th July) where their article carried the headline 'Milk linked to bovine tb in pigs..'.
Pretty strong stuff. The article quoted a 'Defra Animal Health spokesperson', (unamed but full of mischief - if not spite and spin)
"We are looking into the pigs consuming dairy by products as a possible source. It is possible that the milk came from infected cows.."
Now this story is not new. The pigs were found to have lesions in mid March. And in mid March, Defra's local SVS (State Veterinary Service) clanked into action. Samples were taken for culture, and sources checked. Mr. Appleton confirms that he sometimes fed very fresh milk (that's milk from a cow which has calved in the previous 4 days and not allowed into the food chain) to his Gloucester Old Spot rare breed pigs. SVS were informed and (in mid March) checked the health status of the supplying farm. And to make doubly sure. they tb tested the farm again.
It had a clear test before the incident, and it had a clear test afterwards.
The Defra spokesman added:"We may never find the source of the outbreak. It may never be proved one way or the other....".
But at the time of this statement, Defra's SVS arm had already re-tested the herd supplying occasional milk to the pigs. And it was clear. Twice.
So 'we' knew what the source was not, didn't 'we'?
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Stitch-up , or "Kite flying?"
The two posts below described a joint initiative on Bovine tb which was put together by the NFU, but involved representatives from various other organisations including the CLA, RCVS, BVA, Research Universities, NBA and individual farmers. As we said, the final document appeared to drift from what we had understood to be the core policy - and it certainly provoked comments.
In the murky world of 'politics' this is euphemistically known as 'kite flying'.
No stranger to this method of sneaking a controversial idea into policy, Defra are under fire from fisherman for just such a proposal right now. On the BBC Politics show, Bradshaw accused questioners and the media of 'lies and scaremongering' when they questioned his proposal to charge £1000/ year license to small fishing boats. This little gem was buried in the heart of Minister's own report, which had taken 3 years to prepare and which he had written - or so he said. (more on www.warmwell.com/05jul11bradshaw.html )
So what is the relevance to our posts?
Well, having spoken to the original instigators of the NFU Policy, the 'Area clearance' which provoked such a vehement response from our commentators, and which the Telegraph (and other newspapers) used as headlines, was certainly roundly condemned - as was snaring (although succesful in Ireland). My comment was 'Stitch - up', but in retrospect, I think it more likely our upwardly mobile Minister was doing what sneaky politicians do - and 'kite-flying' this proposal under the NFU banner, to guage reaction to it.
'Kite flying' is where a controversial proposal is slipped in, or leaked ahead of final copy, to test public reaction. If that is favourable, or at least muted then the idea is pursued. If vehement opposition is raised, then clever Defra denounces or denies responsibility for it - and then awards it to someone else. In this case the NFU. Quite clever really.
And so 'Area clearance' in the NFU Tb policy proposal grabbed the headlines. It's a fudge. As 'George' said, and I've said - it won't happen and it's counter productive to suggest it could. It isn't necessary - but could just scupper the whole policy.
And - it wasn't there when this proposal left its original drawing board.
In the murky world of 'politics' this is euphemistically known as 'kite flying'.
No stranger to this method of sneaking a controversial idea into policy, Defra are under fire from fisherman for just such a proposal right now. On the BBC Politics show, Bradshaw accused questioners and the media of 'lies and scaremongering' when they questioned his proposal to charge £1000/ year license to small fishing boats. This little gem was buried in the heart of Minister's own report, which had taken 3 years to prepare and which he had written - or so he said. (more on www.warmwell.com/05jul11bradshaw.html )
So what is the relevance to our posts?
Well, having spoken to the original instigators of the NFU Policy, the 'Area clearance' which provoked such a vehement response from our commentators, and which the Telegraph (and other newspapers) used as headlines, was certainly roundly condemned - as was snaring (although succesful in Ireland). My comment was 'Stitch - up', but in retrospect, I think it more likely our upwardly mobile Minister was doing what sneaky politicians do - and 'kite-flying' this proposal under the NFU banner, to guage reaction to it.
'Kite flying' is where a controversial proposal is slipped in, or leaked ahead of final copy, to test public reaction. If that is favourable, or at least muted then the idea is pursued. If vehement opposition is raised, then clever Defra denounces or denies responsibility for it - and then awards it to someone else. In this case the NFU. Quite clever really.
And so 'Area clearance' in the NFU Tb policy proposal grabbed the headlines. It's a fudge. As 'George' said, and I've said - it won't happen and it's counter productive to suggest it could. It isn't necessary - but could just scupper the whole policy.
And - it wasn't there when this proposal left its original drawing board.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
NFU Strategy - For Disease Reduction through Sustainable Wildlife Management
Singing from the same hymn sheet as the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (see post 'Badgers must be Controlled' below), this week the NFU presented its Policy Statement on Tb to the minister at the Royal Show, Stoneleigh.
The title of the Telegraph's piece (below) by environment correspondent Charles Clover, we can find nowhere in the document at all. Farmers are not calling for a "Total Badger Cull" - far from it. The document calls for;
" an environmentally sustainable policy involving management of the population, with intensive measures aimed at diseased populations which do not threaten the thriving badger population as a whole."
But scary headlines are there to sell newspapers.
The strategy involves a number of measures to be taken concurrently which include:
* Targeted area clearances in which diseased badger populations are present (farms, parishes, districts). Assessment of setts to establish their disease status, and appropriate action taken on those found to be inhabited by infectious badgers. Repeat clearance operations and maintainance of both areas through frequent follow-up operations. This to ensure that the wildlife reservoir of bTb is much reduced, and allow test-and-slaughter policies for livestock to remove disease from the area. Measures to rely on gas as a culling method.
*Lifting of the moratorium, implemented in 1997 while awaiting the results of the RBCT , on issuing licenses for disease control purposes under Section 10 of the 1992 Badger Protection Act.
*A general reduction of badger numbers irrespective of livestock disease. This measure as involving the repeal of the 1992 Act, and replacing it with new legislation which protected the badger from inhumane treatment, while making provision for sustainable mangement of its population.
The document emphasises that contrary to the headline on our post below, the NFU is not advocating widespread extermination of badgers. They wish to see healthy cattle and badger populations, and a corresponding removal of diseased individuals.
They also stress that any policy or combination of policies should be undertaken after thorough risk assessment, and involve the expertise of the State Veterinary Service, Defra Wildlife teams, farmers and landowners in joint initiative.
The whole Policy document can be viewed at: www.nfuonline.com (click Royal Show link)
The title of the Telegraph's piece (below) by environment correspondent Charles Clover, we can find nowhere in the document at all. Farmers are not calling for a "Total Badger Cull" - far from it. The document calls for;
" an environmentally sustainable policy involving management of the population, with intensive measures aimed at diseased populations which do not threaten the thriving badger population as a whole."
But scary headlines are there to sell newspapers.
The strategy involves a number of measures to be taken concurrently which include:
* Targeted area clearances in which diseased badger populations are present (farms, parishes, districts). Assessment of setts to establish their disease status, and appropriate action taken on those found to be inhabited by infectious badgers. Repeat clearance operations and maintainance of both areas through frequent follow-up operations. This to ensure that the wildlife reservoir of bTb is much reduced, and allow test-and-slaughter policies for livestock to remove disease from the area. Measures to rely on gas as a culling method.
*Lifting of the moratorium, implemented in 1997 while awaiting the results of the RBCT , on issuing licenses for disease control purposes under Section 10 of the 1992 Badger Protection Act.
*A general reduction of badger numbers irrespective of livestock disease. This measure as involving the repeal of the 1992 Act, and replacing it with new legislation which protected the badger from inhumane treatment, while making provision for sustainable mangement of its population.
The document emphasises that contrary to the headline on our post below, the NFU is not advocating widespread extermination of badgers. They wish to see healthy cattle and badger populations, and a corresponding removal of diseased individuals.
They also stress that any policy or combination of policies should be undertaken after thorough risk assessment, and involve the expertise of the State Veterinary Service, Defra Wildlife teams, farmers and landowners in joint initiative.
The whole Policy document can be viewed at: www.nfuonline.com (click Royal Show link)
Monday, July 04, 2005
Farmers suggest total cull of badgers
The The Daily Telegraph reports today that a general cull of badgers irrespective of whether they or cattle have been found locally to have tuberculosis will be put to ministers today.
This is the most radical of a series of proposals for tackling the growing epidemic of bovine TB that will be published by the National Farmers' Union at the opening of the Royal Show in Stoneleigh, Warwicks, today.
Farmers are alarmed by the spread of the disease, which has led to movement restrictions being placed on 6,000 herds this year, most of them in the South-West. About 10,000 cows were slaughtered between January and April, 3,000 more than last year. It is estimated that the Government's slaughter policy will cost £2 billion in the next decade.
Farmers' leaders are expected to threaten to boycott Labour's strategy for improving farm animal welfare if it does not lift its moratorium on licences to kill badgers in TB hotspots.
Today's NFU report details how a successful eradication programme of the main disease carrier, the possum, is dealing with the problem of bovine TB in New Zealand.
Meurig Raymond, the vice-chairman of the NFU, said: "There are certain areas of the countryside where we do need radical solutions."
But Dr Elaine King, of the National Federation of Badger Groups said: "It is not going to work because it is not backed by the science. There is clear evidence that the vast majority of TB outbreaks result from cattle movements."
This is the most radical of a series of proposals for tackling the growing epidemic of bovine TB that will be published by the National Farmers' Union at the opening of the Royal Show in Stoneleigh, Warwicks, today.
Farmers are alarmed by the spread of the disease, which has led to movement restrictions being placed on 6,000 herds this year, most of them in the South-West. About 10,000 cows were slaughtered between January and April, 3,000 more than last year. It is estimated that the Government's slaughter policy will cost £2 billion in the next decade.
Farmers' leaders are expected to threaten to boycott Labour's strategy for improving farm animal welfare if it does not lift its moratorium on licences to kill badgers in TB hotspots.
Today's NFU report details how a successful eradication programme of the main disease carrier, the possum, is dealing with the problem of bovine TB in New Zealand.
Meurig Raymond, the vice-chairman of the NFU, said: "There are certain areas of the countryside where we do need radical solutions."
But Dr Elaine King, of the National Federation of Badger Groups said: "It is not going to work because it is not backed by the science. There is clear evidence that the vast majority of TB outbreaks result from cattle movements."
Friday, July 01, 2005
"We Don't Want your money...."
In a novel sea change from the popular image of farming 'subsidy junkies', National Beef Association (NBA) representatives have this week delivered several hundred letters from farmers addressed not to Defra and its Minister of Conservation, but to Number 11, Downing Street, and Chancellor Gordon Brown. Their message was stark. "We do not want your money - £2 billion over the next decade - we want bovine Tb tackled 'in the round', and that includes infected wildlife."
Farmers from the southwest delivered almost 1500 letters, describing the situation as;
"more of a problem than BSE or FMD, and with more and more herds going under restriction spreading out over Devon and the Southwest, there is a real sense of despair.."
"We have got to have this issue tackled, because farmers are now so desperate that if we do not, they will feel they have to take the law into their own hands and that cannot be right for anyone".
Southwest NBA chairman Bill Harper, himself a beef farmer with experience of managing a suckler beef herd under Tb restriction, said:
"It is pointless to try and control the spread of disease in cattle, without dealing with the reservoir of disease in badgers".
(*That would depend on what one's 'point was, surely? - ed)
NBA Chief Executive Robert Forster said:
"Farmers have written to the Chancellor in the hope that potential cost savings would prompt him to investigate Defra's stance. We do not think that the Chancellor and Parliament are properly aware of the costs arising out of the procrastination by Defra over (lack of) Tb control."
"If the disease is not checked, there could be a £2 billion bill to the taxpayers over the next ten years, much of which is avoidable".
"We want to get the manacles off the industry by persuading Government that they cannot defer action over the badger issue any longer".
After the presentation, NBA representatives met Ben Bradshaw to discuss the implications of his non-policy. Although one Exmoor farmer detected a 'glimmer of hope', a Defra spokesman said that although Mr. Bradshaw had listened to the farmer's concerns, there was;
" nothing to indicate a change of policy..."
Over the last 8 long years, DEFRA have managed to 'miss the point' of most of the industry's representations on this issue, while hiding behind John bourne's increasingly flimsy skirts. Why should this initiative be any different? Bradshaw has already played true to form and 'invited' the NFU to formulate a strategy for him, and while making soothing noises to other industry heavyweights will probably do exactly the same with them.
Isolate, divide, polish a few individual egos - while doing absolutely nothing. Classic politics.
And as a young, upwardly mobile politician, it will be extraordinarily difficult to persuade Bradshaw to 'understand' anything at all, when his future promotions and salary depend upon his not understanding.
Farmers from the southwest delivered almost 1500 letters, describing the situation as;
"more of a problem than BSE or FMD, and with more and more herds going under restriction spreading out over Devon and the Southwest, there is a real sense of despair.."
"We have got to have this issue tackled, because farmers are now so desperate that if we do not, they will feel they have to take the law into their own hands and that cannot be right for anyone".
Southwest NBA chairman Bill Harper, himself a beef farmer with experience of managing a suckler beef herd under Tb restriction, said:
"It is pointless to try and control the spread of disease in cattle, without dealing with the reservoir of disease in badgers".
(*That would depend on what one's 'point was, surely? - ed)
NBA Chief Executive Robert Forster said:
"Farmers have written to the Chancellor in the hope that potential cost savings would prompt him to investigate Defra's stance. We do not think that the Chancellor and Parliament are properly aware of the costs arising out of the procrastination by Defra over (lack of) Tb control."
"If the disease is not checked, there could be a £2 billion bill to the taxpayers over the next ten years, much of which is avoidable".
"We want to get the manacles off the industry by persuading Government that they cannot defer action over the badger issue any longer".
After the presentation, NBA representatives met Ben Bradshaw to discuss the implications of his non-policy. Although one Exmoor farmer detected a 'glimmer of hope', a Defra spokesman said that although Mr. Bradshaw had listened to the farmer's concerns, there was;
" nothing to indicate a change of policy..."
Over the last 8 long years, DEFRA have managed to 'miss the point' of most of the industry's representations on this issue, while hiding behind John bourne's increasingly flimsy skirts. Why should this initiative be any different? Bradshaw has already played true to form and 'invited' the NFU to formulate a strategy for him, and while making soothing noises to other industry heavyweights will probably do exactly the same with them.
Isolate, divide, polish a few individual egos - while doing absolutely nothing. Classic politics.
And as a young, upwardly mobile politician, it will be extraordinarily difficult to persuade Bradshaw to 'understand' anything at all, when his future promotions and salary depend upon his not understanding.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
'Badgers Must be Controlled'
In a press release addressed to politicians, media, journalists, DEFRA, wildlife organisations and other interested parties, The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (VAWM) has issued the following statement:
"VAWM welcomes the recent statement by the President of the British Veterinary Association and former Chief Veterinary Officer for Northern Ireland, Dr. Bob McCracken. Speaking at the Association's annual dinner in Cardiff, he said that:
"The infected badger must be controlled and removed; what we are debating is how to do so in an effective manner".
Bovine Tb was first discovered in badgers in 1971 and all the scientific evidence since then including the field trials at Thornbury, Steeple Leaze, the Hartland peninsula, East Offaly and most recently, the Irish Four County Trials have identified the badger as the major wildlife reservoir of bovine Tb in cattle.
Latest figures available from Defra show that a large proportion of badgers, up to 50 % in some areas of the Southwest, W. Midlands and Sussex are infected with bovine Tb. Many of these animals will have been excreting vast numbers of infectious tubercle bacilli into the agricultural environment.
Tuberculous badgers die after a chronic illness and all badgers experience other adverse effects of overpopulation; namely loss of territory, fighting, wounding, the increased risk of road accidents, lack of food and starvation.
Failure to control Tb in badgers has inevitably resulted in spill over into other wildlife, including five species of wild deer. The growing reservoir of infection in badgers and other wildlife constitutes a major hazard for man and for many wild and domestic animals.
But Tb apart, the badger, a species without natural predators and protected by law since 1973, is now a serious agricultural pest in many parts of the country, a) from the damage that it does by digging, b) from its predation on ground nesting birds, hedgehogs, new born lambs and free range piglets and c) as the reservoir of a serious zoonotic disease. The population has probably increased 10 - 20 fold in the last decade. It is a classic example of a population out of control through lack of management. The badger is not an endangered species and no longer merits its protected status.
Non lethal methods of population control such as contraception, as yet only a research possibility, are not the answer. And they will do nothing to combat the problem of endemic Tb in badgers, for which vaccination strategies are only a distant possibility.
Strategic culling in areas of endemic infection is essential for controlling Tb in badgers. But nationwide the population also needs to be brought under control by measured culling. The emotive support for the badger is unbalanced and should not continue to undermine proper veterinary concern for the health and welfare of badgers, cattle and other wild and domestic animal species.
In February this year VAWM fully supported the letter sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment, signed by some 350 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, expressing no confidence in Defra's current handling of the situation. This month, Dr. John Gallagher, senior author of the letter, has told the Secretary of State :
"It is self evident you are being badly advised".
For more information, including the full text of the letter to the Secretary of State, see:
www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk
"VAWM welcomes the recent statement by the President of the British Veterinary Association and former Chief Veterinary Officer for Northern Ireland, Dr. Bob McCracken. Speaking at the Association's annual dinner in Cardiff, he said that:
"The infected badger must be controlled and removed; what we are debating is how to do so in an effective manner".
Bovine Tb was first discovered in badgers in 1971 and all the scientific evidence since then including the field trials at Thornbury, Steeple Leaze, the Hartland peninsula, East Offaly and most recently, the Irish Four County Trials have identified the badger as the major wildlife reservoir of bovine Tb in cattle.
Latest figures available from Defra show that a large proportion of badgers, up to 50 % in some areas of the Southwest, W. Midlands and Sussex are infected with bovine Tb. Many of these animals will have been excreting vast numbers of infectious tubercle bacilli into the agricultural environment.
Tuberculous badgers die after a chronic illness and all badgers experience other adverse effects of overpopulation; namely loss of territory, fighting, wounding, the increased risk of road accidents, lack of food and starvation.
Failure to control Tb in badgers has inevitably resulted in spill over into other wildlife, including five species of wild deer. The growing reservoir of infection in badgers and other wildlife constitutes a major hazard for man and for many wild and domestic animals.
But Tb apart, the badger, a species without natural predators and protected by law since 1973, is now a serious agricultural pest in many parts of the country, a) from the damage that it does by digging, b) from its predation on ground nesting birds, hedgehogs, new born lambs and free range piglets and c) as the reservoir of a serious zoonotic disease. The population has probably increased 10 - 20 fold in the last decade. It is a classic example of a population out of control through lack of management. The badger is not an endangered species and no longer merits its protected status.
Non lethal methods of population control such as contraception, as yet only a research possibility, are not the answer. And they will do nothing to combat the problem of endemic Tb in badgers, for which vaccination strategies are only a distant possibility.
Strategic culling in areas of endemic infection is essential for controlling Tb in badgers. But nationwide the population also needs to be brought under control by measured culling. The emotive support for the badger is unbalanced and should not continue to undermine proper veterinary concern for the health and welfare of badgers, cattle and other wild and domestic animal species.
In February this year VAWM fully supported the letter sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment, signed by some 350 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, expressing no confidence in Defra's current handling of the situation. This month, Dr. John Gallagher, senior author of the letter, has told the Secretary of State :
"It is self evident you are being badly advised".
For more information, including the full text of the letter to the Secretary of State, see:
www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk
Monday, June 27, 2005
Cornwall's Longest Serving (tb) Prisoner is Released.
Six long years, over 30 consecutive 60 day tests on his home bred herd, 130 cattle slaughtered, but now Roland Uglow has had a 2 clear tests and Cornwall's longest serving Tb prisoner is free - until the next test at 6 months?
Roland told the Guardian newspaper that "the worst thing, is having to hold down bull calves, healthy and full of life, to give the man from the knacker's yard a clean shot at them. You don't want to be there, you'd rather be miles away - but someone has to keep them still".
For a herd under tuberculosis restriction, the only movements allowed for any class of cattle are to direct slaughter. Very occasionally, and with strict ministry licenses, stock may be moved to dedicated finishing farms. So Roland Uglow's distress in holding these fine healthy calves as they are shot is a situation we all face. A 'benefit' of being under restriction, our Minster of 'Conservation', Mr. Bradshaw may say.
Wildlife campaigners argue that cattle to cattle is the route of Tb transmission. Roland Uglow had a 'closed herd' until Tb struck. Read my lips - No Bought in Cattle.
Roland is a farmer, not a 'wildlife campaigner' but his is a 'wildlife friendly' farm. He plants barley to encourage very rare 'corn buntings', and the farm supports deer and foxes as well as badgers. In 1999, prior to his Tb breakdown Mr. Uglow found a sick badger in his yard. Three months later the herd was placed under restriction at a routine annual Tb test - and has been there ever since. Six years and 2 months. No time off for good behaviour and another couple of dead badgers found as well - in the cattle yards.
For the moment, Roland's cattle - all of which he regards as part of his 'family' - have a respite from the relentless 60 day testing jabs, but he is realistic;
"We are clear for now, and can trade. But we know that the next time we are tested the disease may be back.........."
See link from: http://www.warmwell.com/05june27tb.html
Roland told the Guardian newspaper that "the worst thing, is having to hold down bull calves, healthy and full of life, to give the man from the knacker's yard a clean shot at them. You don't want to be there, you'd rather be miles away - but someone has to keep them still".
For a herd under tuberculosis restriction, the only movements allowed for any class of cattle are to direct slaughter. Very occasionally, and with strict ministry licenses, stock may be moved to dedicated finishing farms. So Roland Uglow's distress in holding these fine healthy calves as they are shot is a situation we all face. A 'benefit' of being under restriction, our Minster of 'Conservation', Mr. Bradshaw may say.
Wildlife campaigners argue that cattle to cattle is the route of Tb transmission. Roland Uglow had a 'closed herd' until Tb struck. Read my lips - No Bought in Cattle.
Roland is a farmer, not a 'wildlife campaigner' but his is a 'wildlife friendly' farm. He plants barley to encourage very rare 'corn buntings', and the farm supports deer and foxes as well as badgers. In 1999, prior to his Tb breakdown Mr. Uglow found a sick badger in his yard. Three months later the herd was placed under restriction at a routine annual Tb test - and has been there ever since. Six years and 2 months. No time off for good behaviour and another couple of dead badgers found as well - in the cattle yards.
For the moment, Roland's cattle - all of which he regards as part of his 'family' - have a respite from the relentless 60 day testing jabs, but he is realistic;
"We are clear for now, and can trade. But we know that the next time we are tested the disease may be back.........."
See link from: http://www.warmwell.com/05june27tb.html
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Badger BCG - more Smoke and Mirrors?
In our post Damping Down, (archived May 05) we told you of both VLA and Irish trials using BCG tuberculin to 'damp down' infection in badgers.
Our observations then - as now - were that it was potentially difficult to administer the accurate optimum dose orally, and that if cattle had access to the bait, would probably flag them up as Reactors to the skin test, and slaughter at Defra's convenience. Injection was safer, but that involved trapping and with all the problems encountered by Krebs - only about 30 - 50 % of target badgers captured and 57% of traps 'interfered with' and 12% 'disappeared' - was unlikely to yield substansive results.
Also, we explained that any badger vaccine so far tested, only slows down the disease progression to other organs than lungs, so while generalised Tb throughout the body may damp down the spread to cattle via urine, the progression of this dreadful disease through the badger population, continues. And it would seem slightly odd to 'vaccinate' an already infected animal - if not fatal.
But having held back the Exeter University report until post election, on the day it was released, our Ben, Captain Bradshaw threw another red herring from his shoal (well he is Minister for Fisheries) to the waiting farmers.
A Tb vaccine trial.
"A small-scale, 3 year study using BCG vaccine will begin in a South West Tb hotspot in the middle of next year. It's primary purpose will be to gather data to assess the safety of the vaccine for badgers, although this will be a secondary aim. There are instances where this method of administration may be useful as an alternative to culling, for instance in disease hotspots" said Captain Birdseye.
Field trials are necessary before the candidate vaccines can apply for the necessary licensing procedures, and results are not expected before 2009. That's another election then? The intention is that the field trial will take place in or near an abandoned Reactive area of Krebs.
That would be the one where the Wildlife teams didn't turn up Leaving our Matthew 5 with a festering warren of infected badgers, which in turn cost the taxpayer ££ thousands for 300 of his and his neighbour's cattle over 5 long years? And that was where by very small scale muddle and incompetence, not to mention animal activists' interference, Bourne and Co managed to 'increase' bTb in the cattle by 27%? Where heavily infected badgers are seen dead or dying, in broad daylight all over the place. That's where they propose to do this 'trial'?
"Defra plan to seek landowners' permission for this trial which will begin after next spring's closed season" - and cost £1.1 million / per year. Not on my patch you won't Ben. Go and play somewhere else.
With his usual ascerbic wit, Muckspreader in Private Eye, (June 21st) captures our own reaction to this latest attempt at displacement activity - or Defra's 'Smoke and Mirrors' if you prefer.
"Apart from the tacit admission that it is badgers that are the cause of the problem, the rug has already been pulled from under this plan by none other than Defra's favourite Tb 'expert', Professor John Bourne. There has now resurfaced a report from a committee chaired by Bourne as recently as 2003, whish poured withering scorn on the value of vaccinating badgers. At best, said Bourne's report, vaccination could only offer a 70 percent success rate (that's a lot better than the good Professor is achieving with his Kreb's traps - ed) - making it virtually useless."
'Virtually useless' ? With that we would not disagree - but would include the RBCT Krebs' trial as well.
Bourne's report continued "Researchers have been looking for a better vaccine since the 1920's - and failed." The only effective strategy Bourne advised, was a cull.
"Dead badgers", he concluded "don't spread disease".
Absolutely spot on. So why not protect the healthy ones?
Our observations then - as now - were that it was potentially difficult to administer the accurate optimum dose orally, and that if cattle had access to the bait, would probably flag them up as Reactors to the skin test, and slaughter at Defra's convenience. Injection was safer, but that involved trapping and with all the problems encountered by Krebs - only about 30 - 50 % of target badgers captured and 57% of traps 'interfered with' and 12% 'disappeared' - was unlikely to yield substansive results.
Also, we explained that any badger vaccine so far tested, only slows down the disease progression to other organs than lungs, so while generalised Tb throughout the body may damp down the spread to cattle via urine, the progression of this dreadful disease through the badger population, continues. And it would seem slightly odd to 'vaccinate' an already infected animal - if not fatal.
But having held back the Exeter University report until post election, on the day it was released, our Ben, Captain Bradshaw threw another red herring from his shoal (well he is Minister for Fisheries) to the waiting farmers.
A Tb vaccine trial.
"A small-scale, 3 year study using BCG vaccine will begin in a South West Tb hotspot in the middle of next year. It's primary purpose will be to gather data to assess the safety of the vaccine for badgers, although this will be a secondary aim. There are instances where this method of administration may be useful as an alternative to culling, for instance in disease hotspots" said Captain Birdseye.
Field trials are necessary before the candidate vaccines can apply for the necessary licensing procedures, and results are not expected before 2009. That's another election then? The intention is that the field trial will take place in or near an abandoned Reactive area of Krebs.
That would be the one where the Wildlife teams didn't turn up Leaving our Matthew 5 with a festering warren of infected badgers, which in turn cost the taxpayer ££ thousands for 300 of his and his neighbour's cattle over 5 long years? And that was where by very small scale muddle and incompetence, not to mention animal activists' interference, Bourne and Co managed to 'increase' bTb in the cattle by 27%? Where heavily infected badgers are seen dead or dying, in broad daylight all over the place. That's where they propose to do this 'trial'?
"Defra plan to seek landowners' permission for this trial which will begin after next spring's closed season" - and cost £1.1 million / per year. Not on my patch you won't Ben. Go and play somewhere else.
With his usual ascerbic wit, Muckspreader in Private Eye, (June 21st) captures our own reaction to this latest attempt at displacement activity - or Defra's 'Smoke and Mirrors' if you prefer.
"Apart from the tacit admission that it is badgers that are the cause of the problem, the rug has already been pulled from under this plan by none other than Defra's favourite Tb 'expert', Professor John Bourne. There has now resurfaced a report from a committee chaired by Bourne as recently as 2003, whish poured withering scorn on the value of vaccinating badgers. At best, said Bourne's report, vaccination could only offer a 70 percent success rate (that's a lot better than the good Professor is achieving with his Kreb's traps - ed) - making it virtually useless."
'Virtually useless' ? With that we would not disagree - but would include the RBCT Krebs' trial as well.
Bourne's report continued "Researchers have been looking for a better vaccine since the 1920's - and failed." The only effective strategy Bourne advised, was a cull.
"Dead badgers", he concluded "don't spread disease".
Absolutely spot on. So why not protect the healthy ones?
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Left Hand and Right Hand?
In previous posts, we have explored the use of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) diagnostics to help identify sources of bTb.
(2005 - A good Idea, and US : UK Special Relationship)
Defra appear very much against the idea, despite (through VLA) having part funded the machine now developed by Enigma Diagnostics. But then Defra were against using the Professor Fred Brown's US version, already proven in Macedonia and Uruguay in diagnosing FMD, preferring instead to use computer modelling to slaughter 11 million animals.
So that is no recommendation - in fact probably the opposite.
Defra are currently funding Warwick University to conduct a three year trial - now in its final year - on 140 farms in the SW, into bTb and other forms of tuberculosis, particularly m.avium paratuberculosis - Johnnes disease. The study involves taking regular serum (bloods) from all adult cattle over the 3 year period, both from Reactor cattle and their cohorts who were clear on the intradermal skin test, having not been in contact with the tb bacterium.
During this third phase, faecal samples are collected for analysis of Johnnes.
The paper describes :
"the sensitivety and specificity of the serological tests for MAP (m. avium paratuberculosis) are poor and of limited use to study Johnnes disease in isolation. The faecal samples analysed this year will enhance their usefulness...
To date studies on MAP have used cultures, and more recently PCR.
MAP is a slow growing organism with fastidious requirements. PCR is challenging because MAP is in faeces and has a tough cell wall. These issues have now been addressed by Professor Wellington, and we can now use PCR ....... to study MAP. This may remove much of the confusion over this apparently ubiquitous pathogen..........."
Well, well, well.
Let's hope news of Professor Wellington's 'removal of confusion' and his use of PCR tecnology to do it, funded by Defra, eventually reaches the corridors of power within our Ministry of Conservation. Until then, forgive your editors for reminding the left hand of the paymaster of this research(Defra) that its right hand is using PCR to facilitate this study into a form of cattle tuberculosis - using a technology about which Defra appears not to want to know.
More on : www.bio.warwick.ac.uk/furtherinformation.htm
(2005 - A good Idea, and US : UK Special Relationship)
Defra appear very much against the idea, despite (through VLA) having part funded the machine now developed by Enigma Diagnostics. But then Defra were against using the Professor Fred Brown's US version, already proven in Macedonia and Uruguay in diagnosing FMD, preferring instead to use computer modelling to slaughter 11 million animals.
So that is no recommendation - in fact probably the opposite.
Defra are currently funding Warwick University to conduct a three year trial - now in its final year - on 140 farms in the SW, into bTb and other forms of tuberculosis, particularly m.avium paratuberculosis - Johnnes disease. The study involves taking regular serum (bloods) from all adult cattle over the 3 year period, both from Reactor cattle and their cohorts who were clear on the intradermal skin test, having not been in contact with the tb bacterium.
During this third phase, faecal samples are collected for analysis of Johnnes.
The paper describes :
"the sensitivety and specificity of the serological tests for MAP (m. avium paratuberculosis) are poor and of limited use to study Johnnes disease in isolation. The faecal samples analysed this year will enhance their usefulness...
To date studies on MAP have used cultures, and more recently PCR.
MAP is a slow growing organism with fastidious requirements. PCR is challenging because MAP is in faeces and has a tough cell wall. These issues have now been addressed by Professor Wellington, and we can now use PCR ....... to study MAP. This may remove much of the confusion over this apparently ubiquitous pathogen..........."
Well, well, well.
Let's hope news of Professor Wellington's 'removal of confusion' and his use of PCR tecnology to do it, funded by Defra, eventually reaches the corridors of power within our Ministry of Conservation. Until then, forgive your editors for reminding the left hand of the paymaster of this research(Defra) that its right hand is using PCR to facilitate this study into a form of cattle tuberculosis - using a technology about which Defra appears not to want to know.
More on : www.bio.warwick.ac.uk/furtherinformation.htm
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Defra's Badger Road Kills - A 'Study' in Constructive Ignorance.
In the post below we described the crazy and shambolic situation of Defra's refusal to test badger carcasses for Tb if they had been found in fields and barns, only picking up 'road kills' in very limited designated areas. The results were then denied to farmers concerned, and any action which may have been taken to clear up confirmed Tb infection prior to cattle becoming affected was of course completely out of the question, the ISG (Independent Scientific Group) and John Bourne sitting on their results like a broody hen on her eggs - or in this case the illustrious Professor's pension.
Since 2002, Defra have postmortemed over 3200 badger carcasses, and sources 'within the State Veterinary Service' say that maps showing the location of grossly infected badger carcasses, correlate exactly with areas of endemic and prolonged cattle Tb.
So far, however Defra has resisted all requests to release, and more important to act on the information these results show. A Defra spokesman, (still hiding behind the diminuitive John Bourne) said that "If farmers had access to these maps, illegal killing of badgers might be encouraged".
Would that be before or after these heavily diseased creatures had caused the slaughter of half the Mile's closed herd on the Roseland? Or their 6 year drip feed of infection into the Uglow's herd in North Cornwall? Mr. Uglow has found 3 dead in his yards - so far. Our Derbyshire 'Matthew', trying to produce organic Angus beef, found dead badgers on his land, and was warned not to touch or repair stiles in his walls without wearing full protective clothing. Our Staffordshire 'Matthew' also found dead badgers prior to his Tb breakdown. He saw them in the daytime, sick and so horribly affected by Tb that he felt physically sick. "If I allowed a dog to get into that state, I'd be prosecuted", he said.
But as we said in the post below, forget dead or sick badgers in fields and buildings - which vets tell us is a classic precurser to cattle Tb within months. Wrong carcass, wrong place. It's road kills Defra want. And even then they refuse to release results, or act on them preferring to hide behind the ministerial smoke screen of Krebs. The very fact that Defra are refusing to release these results suggest that they confirm every other study, trial and report commissioned into bTb. That is that a substansive reservoir of the disease exists and is growing within the badger population.
A 'study' in constructive ignorance then?
Since 2002, Defra have postmortemed over 3200 badger carcasses, and sources 'within the State Veterinary Service' say that maps showing the location of grossly infected badger carcasses, correlate exactly with areas of endemic and prolonged cattle Tb.
So far, however Defra has resisted all requests to release, and more important to act on the information these results show. A Defra spokesman, (still hiding behind the diminuitive John Bourne) said that "If farmers had access to these maps, illegal killing of badgers might be encouraged".
Would that be before or after these heavily diseased creatures had caused the slaughter of half the Mile's closed herd on the Roseland? Or their 6 year drip feed of infection into the Uglow's herd in North Cornwall? Mr. Uglow has found 3 dead in his yards - so far. Our Derbyshire 'Matthew', trying to produce organic Angus beef, found dead badgers on his land, and was warned not to touch or repair stiles in his walls without wearing full protective clothing. Our Staffordshire 'Matthew' also found dead badgers prior to his Tb breakdown. He saw them in the daytime, sick and so horribly affected by Tb that he felt physically sick. "If I allowed a dog to get into that state, I'd be prosecuted", he said.
But as we said in the post below, forget dead or sick badgers in fields and buildings - which vets tell us is a classic precurser to cattle Tb within months. Wrong carcass, wrong place. It's road kills Defra want. And even then they refuse to release results, or act on them preferring to hide behind the ministerial smoke screen of Krebs. The very fact that Defra are refusing to release these results suggest that they confirm every other study, trial and report commissioned into bTb. That is that a substansive reservoir of the disease exists and is growing within the badger population.
A 'study' in constructive ignorance then?
Sunday, June 19, 2005
National Badger Day - A vet's view.
Adding his comment to the population explosion 'enjoyed' by the UK's badgers, David Denny MRCVS writes:
"Badgers, once a rarity in the countryside have increased in such numbers, that they are now relatively common. These fascinating creatures are becoming more and more popular with the public. This population explosion can be attributed to badgers being made a protected species in the 1970's - in an attempt to outlaw obnoxious badger baiting, together with an increase in maize growing - maize is their favourite food, (after peanuts) - by farmers.
Unfortunately, many badgers - up to 80 percent - particularly in the western UK have Tb. Infected badgers will suffer for up to three years, before dying slowly from starvation.
There is no treatment. Since humans can catch Tuberculosis, great care should be taken when handling badgers, dead or alive, - or even where they have been.
This explosion in badger numbers coincides with a dramatic increase in cattle with Tb. Consequently thousands, many heavily pregnant, are compulsorily slaughtered monthly, in an attempt to contain the disease. Controversially, farmers claim that badgers are infecting their cattle. The National federation of Badger Groups (NFBG) claim badgers are innocent.
In an attempt to settle the 'argument' the government commissioned the Independent Kreb's trial which involves trapping and culling badgers. Why, if the NFBG are so convinced that badgers are innocent, are they sabotaging this trial, by wrecking traps, relocating badgers and intimidating those involved?
It is hardly the behaviour of those defending the innocent?"
David Denny has first hand experience 'in the field' of the scourge of tuberculosis, both in the badger population and it's spill over into his client's cattle herds, all 5 species of wild deer and increasingly now into cats, both feral and domestic. He replied to Ben Bradshaw's slippery and shameful letter to Margaret Miles (see post below) as follows:
"It is both naive and hypocritical of the Minister, Ben Bradshaw to claim that a cull of badgers would 'result in some healthy badgers being killed'. Thousands of cattle a month are being compulsorily slaughtered as a result of failing their (Tb) test. Only a few of these cattle actually have Tb, the others being perfectly healthy." (Here we would explain again, that the intradermal skin test, used all over the world in line with OIE (Office of International Epizootics) and EU regulations, does not indicate full blown Tb in cattle. It flags up an immune response in the skin to the animals' exposure to Tb bacteria - bacteria which in a closed herd like Margaret Miles' should not be there at all. And we would also take the opportunity to thank Ben for his answers to PQ's (archived) that in the absence of a wildlife reservoir, all countries control Tb with this skin test and slaughter of any reactors to it.)
Mr.Denny continues, "It is only common sense (since when did that come into it? - ed.) that it cannot be in the interests of a healthy badger population to have Tb in their midst. Badgers with Tb (that's up to 80% of them) eventually die after several months from starvation."
"The problem lies with the far too successful lobbying of Ministers and Professors alike, by Dr. Elaine King - the Chief Executive of the NFBG, claiming the badger's innocence. What are the motives of these 'badger protection groups', when they subject badgers to this unecessary suffering?"
At the 'sharp end' - that is in the fields and farmland of the western UK, the badgers are we see are indicative of a thoroughly diseased population.
Often crawling around in broad daylight, they are emaciated, mangy, abscessed and distressed. They are also highly infectious to many other species with which they, or their body fluids have contact. National Badger Day? With library pictures of bright eyed bushy tailed shiny badgers? Tell it as it is Elaine. Why should farmers be the only ones to experience the suffering caused by your 'industry'?
We want to share the result of your lobbying, on this most loved of British mammals. Pictures of diseased and suffering badgers - in the raw.
Bring it on.
"Badgers, once a rarity in the countryside have increased in such numbers, that they are now relatively common. These fascinating creatures are becoming more and more popular with the public. This population explosion can be attributed to badgers being made a protected species in the 1970's - in an attempt to outlaw obnoxious badger baiting, together with an increase in maize growing - maize is their favourite food, (after peanuts) - by farmers.
Unfortunately, many badgers - up to 80 percent - particularly in the western UK have Tb. Infected badgers will suffer for up to three years, before dying slowly from starvation.
There is no treatment. Since humans can catch Tuberculosis, great care should be taken when handling badgers, dead or alive, - or even where they have been.
This explosion in badger numbers coincides with a dramatic increase in cattle with Tb. Consequently thousands, many heavily pregnant, are compulsorily slaughtered monthly, in an attempt to contain the disease. Controversially, farmers claim that badgers are infecting their cattle. The National federation of Badger Groups (NFBG) claim badgers are innocent.
In an attempt to settle the 'argument' the government commissioned the Independent Kreb's trial which involves trapping and culling badgers. Why, if the NFBG are so convinced that badgers are innocent, are they sabotaging this trial, by wrecking traps, relocating badgers and intimidating those involved?
It is hardly the behaviour of those defending the innocent?"
David Denny has first hand experience 'in the field' of the scourge of tuberculosis, both in the badger population and it's spill over into his client's cattle herds, all 5 species of wild deer and increasingly now into cats, both feral and domestic. He replied to Ben Bradshaw's slippery and shameful letter to Margaret Miles (see post below) as follows:
"It is both naive and hypocritical of the Minister, Ben Bradshaw to claim that a cull of badgers would 'result in some healthy badgers being killed'. Thousands of cattle a month are being compulsorily slaughtered as a result of failing their (Tb) test. Only a few of these cattle actually have Tb, the others being perfectly healthy." (Here we would explain again, that the intradermal skin test, used all over the world in line with OIE (Office of International Epizootics) and EU regulations, does not indicate full blown Tb in cattle. It flags up an immune response in the skin to the animals' exposure to Tb bacteria - bacteria which in a closed herd like Margaret Miles' should not be there at all. And we would also take the opportunity to thank Ben for his answers to PQ's (archived) that in the absence of a wildlife reservoir, all countries control Tb with this skin test and slaughter of any reactors to it.)
Mr.Denny continues, "It is only common sense (since when did that come into it? - ed.) that it cannot be in the interests of a healthy badger population to have Tb in their midst. Badgers with Tb (that's up to 80% of them) eventually die after several months from starvation."
"The problem lies with the far too successful lobbying of Ministers and Professors alike, by Dr. Elaine King - the Chief Executive of the NFBG, claiming the badger's innocence. What are the motives of these 'badger protection groups', when they subject badgers to this unecessary suffering?"
At the 'sharp end' - that is in the fields and farmland of the western UK, the badgers are we see are indicative of a thoroughly diseased population.
Often crawling around in broad daylight, they are emaciated, mangy, abscessed and distressed. They are also highly infectious to many other species with which they, or their body fluids have contact. National Badger Day? With library pictures of bright eyed bushy tailed shiny badgers? Tell it as it is Elaine. Why should farmers be the only ones to experience the suffering caused by your 'industry'?
We want to share the result of your lobbying, on this most loved of British mammals. Pictures of diseased and suffering badgers - in the raw.
Bring it on.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Crisis? Wot Crisis?
It has not escaped our notice that today, June 18th is National Badger Day. Radio 4, BBC and the mainstream media are making fluffy, bunny noises - "ooohs and aaahs" in response to library pictures of shiny healthy badgers enjoying life. Oh that life were that simple.
In our post "Cattle slaughtered up 30 percent " (May 10th), we also reported a letter written by Cornish farmer Margaret Miles in which she described the devastation caused to her 'closed' herd of cattle on the Roseland Peninsula by bovine Tb. To refresh your memories, Mrs. Miles' dairy herd is self contained, the last breeding female being purchased in the mid 60's. Four times in 40 years, Mr. & Mrs. Miles have purchased a bull, the last one had been on the farm for almost his allotted time. Ten years. During 2004, several badgers were found dead or dying on the farm. In fact one was found recently, horribly scarred, skeletalised, decomposed and extremely dead in a barn on the farm. Not a good picture with which to celebrate National Badger Day, but of course the general public would not see these badgers. Yet.
In her original letter, Mrs. Miles invited Mr. Bradshaw to discuss the problems with bovine Tb on the Cornish farm, given that no cattle had been purchased in the recent past. But with his usual political dexterity, our Ben answered questions which had not been asked, with answers we already knew and then scuttled away - behind John Bourne's skirts and the Krebs trials. Now there's a surprise.
Mrs. Miles has now lost almost 50 percent of the herd's milking cows, many heavily in calf. Some in fact only a couple of weeks from calving. Heavily pregnant, they were shot, and their bellies bellies split - to disgorge guts and also live calf on the abattoir floor. Why?. Because the skin test had revealed they'd had contact with a bacteria which in a closed herd, should not be there at all. Tuberculosis -mycobacterium bovis. The public don't see that either.
Unimpressed with the Minister of Fisheries and Conservation's reply, this week Mrs. Miles again put pen to paper in a second letter to the Telegraph.
" I have asked for an interview with Mr. Bradshaw in the hope of finding out the real reason for Defra's refusal to test the badgers on our farm for bTb. We are forbidden to do this ourselves, and without a clear indication of the source of infection in our 'closed' herd, it is pointless and somewhat immoral to introduce clean cattle onto our farm. For our cows, time is running out..."
The following day, bright eyed and bushy tailed, the Minister replied:
"We do not test badgers on farms like the Miles as there is no reliable test".
Now on that we would agree with Ben. But this is the old ELISA Brock test to which the Minister refers. The test which badger 'sanctuaries ' use to test their mended and rescued badgers - before releasing them - anywhere at all. How smart is that?
Mr. Bradshaw continued to tell Telegraph readers (and the Miles family)
"The only way of reliably telling if a badger has Tb is by postmortem"
He really did slither there didn't he? Spot the deliberate mistake. Mrs. Mile's badgers were already dead - but in the wrong place. On the farm. In the fields. In the buildings. Anywhere but NOT ROAD KILLS, so forget it. Defra will NOT pick up badgers reported dead in fields. No they won't Ben, don't argue. Farmers have a contact number to ring to report such carcasses, but even in the Krebs areas, we can say with absolute certainty - been there, done that - and the badger was not collected. Constructive ignorance then? And even if the carcass (actually 'your' carcass) is translocated to the roadside, then reported and post mortemed, results are guarded with a tenacity reminiscent of the Cold War. John Bourne's job depends on it.
Ben then goes into 'lecture mode' and sternly continues with the the threat:
"Those advocating badger culling need to acknowledge that, if carried out now, it would inevitably mean killing healthy as well as infected badgers"
Would it? PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) technology is available and used in the States. What did the minister mean by 'now'? He can't still be waiting for the UK version - can he? And what is the difference between killing a few (if there are any left) 'healthy' badgers and the 30,000 cattle slaughtered annually because the 'Minister' of Fisheries and Conservation can't get a handle on the reservoir of bTb which his answers to PQ's tell us is "Endemic in the badgers".
He concludes his letter:
"The key questions are whether a badger culling policy could be cost effective, sustainable, and viable as part of our overall efforts to control Tb".
This from a Minister who has presided over a 20 percent rise (in cattle Reactors) annually of one of the biggest scouges of human beings on earth - tuberculosis, and is preparing to commit the treasury to a budget of £2 billion over 10 years NOT sorting it out. But on a day when viewers are being encouraged to join the NFBG, and 'enjoy' badgers we must spare a thought for them as well. The total protection which they are privileged to 'enjoy' has bought them endemic, disabling, chronic disease which they recycle through contact in their sets, and then spill out into other animals, both wild and domestic. Ultimately human beings are at risk.
Mrs. Miles has told the Minister in a second letter, that badger numbers on the farm had increased dramatically and that since the summer of 2004, several dead or dying badgers had been found and reported to Defra. But as we have pointed out, wrong carcasses, wrong place.
"Slaughtering our cattle is pointless without efforts to eradicate reservoirs of infection in the wildlife". concluded Mrs. Miles.
With that, we would agree - even or especially, on National Badger Day.
In our post "Cattle slaughtered up 30 percent " (May 10th), we also reported a letter written by Cornish farmer Margaret Miles in which she described the devastation caused to her 'closed' herd of cattle on the Roseland Peninsula by bovine Tb. To refresh your memories, Mrs. Miles' dairy herd is self contained, the last breeding female being purchased in the mid 60's. Four times in 40 years, Mr. & Mrs. Miles have purchased a bull, the last one had been on the farm for almost his allotted time. Ten years. During 2004, several badgers were found dead or dying on the farm. In fact one was found recently, horribly scarred, skeletalised, decomposed and extremely dead in a barn on the farm. Not a good picture with which to celebrate National Badger Day, but of course the general public would not see these badgers. Yet.
In her original letter, Mrs. Miles invited Mr. Bradshaw to discuss the problems with bovine Tb on the Cornish farm, given that no cattle had been purchased in the recent past. But with his usual political dexterity, our Ben answered questions which had not been asked, with answers we already knew and then scuttled away - behind John Bourne's skirts and the Krebs trials. Now there's a surprise.
Mrs. Miles has now lost almost 50 percent of the herd's milking cows, many heavily in calf. Some in fact only a couple of weeks from calving. Heavily pregnant, they were shot, and their bellies bellies split - to disgorge guts and also live calf on the abattoir floor. Why?. Because the skin test had revealed they'd had contact with a bacteria which in a closed herd, should not be there at all. Tuberculosis -mycobacterium bovis. The public don't see that either.
Unimpressed with the Minister of Fisheries and Conservation's reply, this week Mrs. Miles again put pen to paper in a second letter to the Telegraph.
" I have asked for an interview with Mr. Bradshaw in the hope of finding out the real reason for Defra's refusal to test the badgers on our farm for bTb. We are forbidden to do this ourselves, and without a clear indication of the source of infection in our 'closed' herd, it is pointless and somewhat immoral to introduce clean cattle onto our farm. For our cows, time is running out..."
The following day, bright eyed and bushy tailed, the Minister replied:
"We do not test badgers on farms like the Miles as there is no reliable test".
Now on that we would agree with Ben. But this is the old ELISA Brock test to which the Minister refers. The test which badger 'sanctuaries ' use to test their mended and rescued badgers - before releasing them - anywhere at all. How smart is that?
Mr. Bradshaw continued to tell Telegraph readers (and the Miles family)
"The only way of reliably telling if a badger has Tb is by postmortem"
He really did slither there didn't he? Spot the deliberate mistake. Mrs. Mile's badgers were already dead - but in the wrong place. On the farm. In the fields. In the buildings. Anywhere but NOT ROAD KILLS, so forget it. Defra will NOT pick up badgers reported dead in fields. No they won't Ben, don't argue. Farmers have a contact number to ring to report such carcasses, but even in the Krebs areas, we can say with absolute certainty - been there, done that - and the badger was not collected. Constructive ignorance then? And even if the carcass (actually 'your' carcass) is translocated to the roadside, then reported and post mortemed, results are guarded with a tenacity reminiscent of the Cold War. John Bourne's job depends on it.
Ben then goes into 'lecture mode' and sternly continues with the the threat:
"Those advocating badger culling need to acknowledge that, if carried out now, it would inevitably mean killing healthy as well as infected badgers"
Would it? PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) technology is available and used in the States. What did the minister mean by 'now'? He can't still be waiting for the UK version - can he? And what is the difference between killing a few (if there are any left) 'healthy' badgers and the 30,000 cattle slaughtered annually because the 'Minister' of Fisheries and Conservation can't get a handle on the reservoir of bTb which his answers to PQ's tell us is "Endemic in the badgers".
He concludes his letter:
"The key questions are whether a badger culling policy could be cost effective, sustainable, and viable as part of our overall efforts to control Tb".
This from a Minister who has presided over a 20 percent rise (in cattle Reactors) annually of one of the biggest scouges of human beings on earth - tuberculosis, and is preparing to commit the treasury to a budget of £2 billion over 10 years NOT sorting it out. But on a day when viewers are being encouraged to join the NFBG, and 'enjoy' badgers we must spare a thought for them as well. The total protection which they are privileged to 'enjoy' has bought them endemic, disabling, chronic disease which they recycle through contact in their sets, and then spill out into other animals, both wild and domestic. Ultimately human beings are at risk.
Mrs. Miles has told the Minister in a second letter, that badger numbers on the farm had increased dramatically and that since the summer of 2004, several dead or dying badgers had been found and reported to Defra. But as we have pointed out, wrong carcasses, wrong place.
"Slaughtering our cattle is pointless without efforts to eradicate reservoirs of infection in the wildlife". concluded Mrs. Miles.
With that, we would agree - even or especially, on National Badger Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)