Wildlife Unit field staff - sacked.

Anyone hoping that our wonderfully 'responsible' Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would take its responsibilities seriously and use the expertise of its highly trained staff to control an extremely pathogenic (grade 3 on a scale of 1 to 4), invariably fatal zoonosis for which Defra and Defra alone has responsibility, will be disappointed to hear that considerable redundancies are forecast among the Wildlife Unit fieldstaff.

Rumours circulated in February, and early March we understand that many staff were offered cash in lieu of notice. Over 100 operatives are involved, many with up to 20 years experience of field work with badgers, and considerable expertise in the habits of sick ones. How to recognise a vibrant and healthy sett etc. (Or even - we kid you not - how to recognise a badger sett, and not confuse it with rabbit holes or a fox's earth - many of which were happily mapped by Chris Cheeseman's rosy cheeked graduates in the early days of Krebs. Well it was a 'hole' - what did you expect? But the down side of their reigned in exuberance was that we had 3 single hole 'hospital setts' which were completely missed by the mappers, and their very sick occupants left to wreak their havoc for several years.)

"The cost of sacking the wildlife officers, some of whom have been with the department for more than 20 years, has been put at between £2 million and £3 million and is covered in a story by the Western Morning News "

The redundancies have been attacked as an attempt by ministers to shift responsibility for the handling of the bovine TB crisis on to farmers while allowing Defra to meet Treasury budget targets. ...

www.warmwell.com comments on the story:

" It continues to amaze that we hear nothing at all from DEFRA about the technology that can make real progress in the eradication of bovine TB in wildlife. Is there no one with any scientific or veterinary knowledge able to talk to the policy makers? Policy, it appears, must always be driven by bureaucracy and budgets instead of by (sound-ed) science, technology and veterinary skill. And more and more is it to be paid for by the hapless farmers.

The government does not really want an untargetted mass cull of badgers - fearing, as it did not in 2001, a horrified urban outcry. (Farmers don't want that either. It is only the shrill shrieks of the diminutive professor Bourne, echoed by the sound of rattling money boxes from the Badger Trusts and RSPCA that are flagging it up, based on the 'results' not of culling badgers in the Krebs' RBCT, but of stirring up the social groups and dispersing the whole goddamned lot of them over a very wide area.)

When will the government recognise that the tools to avoid such a politically unpopular, ethically questionable and scientifically unnecessary move are ready and available?An article in the Veterinary Times back in 2004 concluded that the attraction of using rapid real-time PCR is that it may be "accurate enough to distinguish the TB status of individual badgers within a sett. If a half hour test can reveal this, then the targeted cull of badgers that we propose might be refined even further. " While the research below using UK built rapid RT-PCR diagnosis in badger setts and latrines shows that we have now, at this moment, the technology that can show which badgers are infected. "we would prefer that culling is targeted at diseased and infectious animals" said the researchers - and this would indeed be possible. See also bovine TB page and the abstract of the Warwick RT-PCR work in the Royal Society "Biology Letters" in March this year."

The technology is there. It's been there for years. It's British. It's trialled and proven to work. But for every real-time PCR machine specifically targetting any disease problem - a quasi-scientist / researcher loses his job. No more trials = no more cash. Simple really.

And as we said, do turkeys vote for Christmas? The Defra Wildlife unit staff, whose wide ranging expertise backed with this stunning technology ( which can target any bacteria where they occur, could have delivered a closely targetted cull to comply with Bern convention, public sensitivities and the taxpayer - are under notice to quit. The Flat Earth society has spoken.

Krebs - A study in badger dispersal?

In our post below, we quoted from a Wildlife operative's submission to the EFRA committee which described his experiences trying to catch badgers for the Krebs RBCT, and he warns observers not to take any Krebs results seriously.

http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/03/robust-basis-of-krebs.html

The whole basis of Krebs was to compare methods of ..... errr, culling badgers.
And it appears that on that basic premise the trials failed, so what of any conclusions drawn from this trial in 'peturbation'?

A letter printed in this week's Veterinary Record from Dr. John Gallagher and others follows:

TB policy and the badger culling trials.

With reference to last weeks letter (Bourne et al. 2006 ) from the Independent Scientific Group on TB (ISG ) we feel the catastrophic problems surrounding the current TB policy are such that this requires a response.
The raison d’etre for the formation of this Group was to carry out the badger culling trials as recommended by Krebs (1997). Despite the huge logistical difficulties encountered and problems with animal rights activist interference, intimidation and lack of cooperation compromising its efficacy, it is understandable that the ISG wish to defend the findings of their trial.

However, DEFRA staff carried out the trapping as determined by the ISG and it is DEFRA which admitted that the overall trapping efficiency was remarkably poor at between 20 and 60 per cent (DEFRA 2005). The consequential social disruption and dispersal of infected badgers was found to have been very considerable . Thus these trials have been so badly compromised that extreme caution is required in their interpretation.

It is unfortunate that the ISG have disregarded earlier work on this subject but understandable as to admit the veracity of this work would have made the Krebs culling trials unnecessary. But it is folly not to heed such work as it was carried out to more exacting standards with regard to culling efficiency, being virtually 100 per cent in both the Thornbury and Steeple Leaze trials and over 80 percent in the East Offaly Trial and Hartland clearance (Gallagher et al 2006). The ISG’s trial was envisaged as a culling trial but as a result of the many problems encountered it turned out to be virtually a study of disruption and dispersal of badgers.

Based on many years of practical experience of tuberculous disease in cattle and badgers and its control we disagree with the ISG over their conclusions based on their trials and their recommendations for future control of TB in cattle. The ISG should be aware that TB has been eradicated from cattle in 23 of the 25 Member States of the European Community by test and slaughter. It was almost eradicated in this Country in 1986 when only 84 confirmed outbreaks were recorded before effective strategic culling of infected badgers ceased. Only Britain and Ireland have a problem and Ireland is making encouraging progress in tackling theirs. Whilst the huge carnage of cattle taken as TB reactors continues it is quite irrational for the ISG to assert that cattle to cattle transmission is the real problem.

We can assure this Group that until the badger maintenance host is effectively dealt with TB in cattle will not be controlled and certainly never eradicated.

This is also the agreed opinion of over 420 veterinarians mostly from the problem areas in the South West, South Wales and Sussex and dealing on farm with this problem. Considering there are now only about one thousand veterinarians in farm animal practice this represents a considerable body of informed opinion. These views were expressed in a jointly signed letter to the Secretary of State for DEFRA in February and June 2005. We consider that this problem is too serious to be put off track by views based on a trial with highly questionable results.
J. Gallagher
R.H. Muirhead
A.T.Turnbull
J.I.Davies
W.L.G.Ashton
J.Smith
J.M.Daykin
A.McDiarmid



Dr. Gallagher refers to Defra observations of the number of badgers caught in the Krebs triplets as "remarkably poor, at from 20% to 60%". It is our understanding that this figure is calculated using the amount of land available to the RBCT, and John Bourne has said that as much as 50% of that was 'unavailable' in some areas. Whether that included the RBCT's own 'exclusions', i.e farms already under Tb restriction at the start of the 'trial' or just land whose owners refused access, we do not know. Neither do we know if the Defra figure factored in the RBCT trapping efficacy as described in Parliamentary Questions:

8th Dec 2003: Column 218W
Mr. Paterson. To ask the Secretary of State for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs in how many cases badger traps laid by or on behalf of the Department in the TB culling trial have been interfered with or removed without authorisation. [141971]
Mr. Bradshaw. Interference with badger traps laid in the Randomised Culling Trial is variable between operations. It is usually quite geographically localised and repetitive within a culling operational area. Management records indicate that - over 116 culling operations, across 19 trial areas, between December 1998 and October 2003 , during which 15,666 traps were sited - there were 8,981 individual occasions where the trap was interfered with, and 1,827 individual cull sites when a trap was removed.

We make that 57% opened or trashed, and 12% went AWOL altogether.
So out of a 100% cage traps set, 69% were unavailable to catch anything at all. And we suspect that this figure was attributable to in some cases on only 50% of land available and mapped in the RBCT, some of whose boundaries changed over the time of the 'trial'.

Amazing stuff this 'science'. You couldn't make it up.

Fern - Positive for Tb on post mortem.

Western Morning News the story yesterday:

POST-MORTEM SHOWS FERN DID HAVE BOVINE TB

"A post-mortem examination on a calf at the centre of a bovine TB testing row has confirmed the animal did have the disease, it emerged yesterday. Sheilagh Kremers had battled to prevent her nine-month pedigree bull calf Fern, from falling victim to the Government's strategy for controlling TB in cattle.

However, 63-year-old Mrs Kremers' battle ended last week when Fern was slaughtered in the stall at her New Park Farm in East Ogwell, near Newton Abbot. (see post below) Now the State Veterinary Service (SVS) has released details of the post-mortem that was carried out on the calf. A spokesman for SVS said the results had "confirmed the accuracy of the diagnostic skin test, by showing clearly visible pathological signs of bovine tuberculosis".
He said the examination showed the presence of visible lesions, typical of the presence of the disease. Tissue samples from the carcass have been sent to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to confirm the strain of infection.

"If left alive, this animal would, in time, have been likely to suffer typical signs of disease such as emaciation, weakness, breathing difficulties and, probably, premature death," said the spokesman.

"Bovine TB is a highly progressive, chronic disease which worsens with time. It is essential that animals reacting to the diagnostic skin test are removed and slaughtered at the earliest opportunity."By delaying slaughter, infected animals pose a significantly greater risk of spreading TB among other animals in the herd, to neighbouring farms and wildlife."

Couldn't agree more. Leave a hotspot of infection and it will only get worse.
So why exempt badgers from this disease description? Arhh, sorry, we forgot. Badgers don't suffer do they, and of course they don't transmit bTb to cattle either do they . . . silly me.

I wonder where 'Fern' picked it up from?

Shelaigh Kremers will now be served a notice requiring her to 'cleanse and disinfect every part of the premises occupied by the reactor animal', in this case Fern, with an 'approved disinfectant' . This to include his drinking and feeding equipment, disposal of his bedding and disinfection of walls and floors of his 'premises'. Quite right.

But compare this to action on an infected badger sett;
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2004/07/you-cannot-be-serious-3-sticks.html

...or just a comedy?

In our post below, http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/04/comedy-of-errors.html , we pointed out a couple of extraordinary gaffs which were lurking in a recent paper submitted to 'Nature' the headline of which - if nothing else - is being widely quoted. A comment on the post reminded us that "badgers had been factored into the predictions" and for that at least we should be grateful. Or should we?

The Veterinary Times (April 10th) prints a letter from which we quote:

"When you are writing a scientific paper, the title is most important because it is all that most people will read".

So what do we make of the flyer on the cover of 'Nature' which asserts: " Bovine tuberculosis - Cattle Movements spread Disease" ?

The author the letter has not picked up on the sentence which we printed below re. the start date of BCMS mandatory registrations, but he has explored much more of the badgery data. And very interesting (weak?) it is too.

He says: "The paper is in fact a 6 page letter that reports on the statistical comparison of cattle movements against a number of other possible 'risk' factors described as "environmental, demographic, agricultural and climatic parameters".

Among these other risk factors, I could find no trace of any really 'fruity' predictors, like the observed presence of badgers in the farmyard, dead badgers in grazing fields, maize crop fields sited so that badgers were crossing grazing fields in early autumn, or even operations likely to disturb badgers, such as a national programme of tree felling on railway lines. Indeed apart from cattle movements, I could find no clear definition of any risk factor."

"The letter is surprisingly coy about specifying what the risk factors it compared were. "

The author explains that the information he required, is not available with the original 'letter' but as a supplementary addendum. And yes, as a 'predicter', badgers were mentioned, but not diseased badgers, and not on a comparable time scale to the BCMS data.

"The considerable datbase, built up by the SVS (State Veterinary Service) during the two decades prior to 1998, of locations where diseased badgers had been found was not mentioned; all I could find was the following remarkable statement:

"Badgers. Detailed information about badger distribution in Great Britain has not been possible to obtain".

" Information published in summary form for 1988 and 1997 was unavailable because the original data was collected by volunteers on the strict understanding that it remain confidential. Alternative, freely available data, are at best, patchy. The geographically most complete source from the Countryside Information System contains 1km resolution information on badger distribution from the Mammal Society, the Biological Records Centre and the British Deer Society surveys between 1965 and 1990. Even when aggregated to 10km. these records are unlikely to provide a very realistic representation of actual distribution" (Too goddam right - Amateur 'guessimates' from 1965 compared with BCMS data 2000 - 2003?? And they call this science? - you couldn't make it up. - ed)

The letter's author is more polite, "In other words, the only badger data entered into the analysis were of dubious value and covered a period between 1965 and 1990. By contrast the Cattle Movement data used in the statistical analyses covered the years 2000 - 2003"

"The elegant statistical analysis therefore compared worthless and irrelevant data from a 25 year period with extremely detailed and reliable data from a 4 year period - a decade later."

Describing the paper's authors as engaging in 'statistical gymnastics', the author also points out that even when a purchased animal proves to be the only reactor in a herd, this is still classed as a 'herd breakdown', as there is no other box to tick on SVS forms. "This is misleading. In any meaningful use of the term (breakdown) the disclosure of a purchased animal as a reactor, when no other animals in the herd react, either at the disclosing test or subsequently, is not a herd breakdown. "

He concludes "I am no statistician, but I am confident in asserting that no valid conclusions can be drawn from this 'statistical excercise' as to the relevant significance of cattle movements and the uncontrolled disease in a protected badger population".

Andrew J. Proud. BVSc, DVSM, MRCVS

We agree.

End of the line for 'Fern'.

Last Friday, 7th April 'Mous'el Fern', the little Dexter calf at the centre of Shelaigh Kremer's fight against the bureaucracy, arrogance and downright stupidity of Defra's one sided 'fight' against bTb, - which seems to involve killing off as many of the country's cattle as possible, without looking out of their respective boxes at wildlife - finally reached the end of (his) road.

Western Morning News reports:

"The tiny bull looked up at the young woman expectantly, as if she might be about to give him a treat - she stroked him and slowly lifted the thing that looked like a gun to his head.
"Phut!" The tiny bull's big wide innocent eyes rolled heavenwards, he grunted once, and it was all over.

So ended the saga of Fern, the ninth-month-old Dexter bull calf, which had tested positively as a reactor to TB. A small crowd had gathered to witness his passing: government vets who appeared to look somewhat apologetic about the whole thing; press photographers whose flash bulbs cast an eerie strobe as the diminutive bovine keeled over; even a BBC camerawoman who said: "They won't use it, but I'm going to film it anyway."

Just about the only person with a key interest in the whole debacle who wasn't there was the bull-calf's owner, Sheilagh Kremers. She stood at the top of her South Devon field with a face like thunder. Sheilagh couldn't face seeing the death of her beloved bull.

Britain's best known TB protester went on to say she wouldn't accept a penny short of £1,000 as compensation, so when valuer Derek Biss, from Greenslade, Taylor, Hunt eventually gave her a price of £2,100 after inspecting Fern and the rest of the herd, an almost imperceptible expression of puzzlement flitted across Sheilagh's face. With a sigh that spoke a million words about wearied inevitability, the retired schoolteacher looked at no one in particular and said: "Yes, do it."

"All I want to do is enjoy my retirement," said the woman who first fell in love with animals when she was teaching special-needs children in a London school. "My dream was to come somewhere like this and live the good life. But the good life has turned into a nightmare. I can't live with this - they (the state vets) will come every 60 days to test the rest of my cattle and my heart is going to be in my mouth every time. Is it Daisy this time, or is it Buttercup?"

In another section, Western Morning News explains:

"A four-month battle to spare the valuable calf at the centre of a bovine TB testing row ended yesterday with his slaughter. Fern, a Dexter bull calf, was shot dead with a bolt after his owner Sheilagh Kremers accepted an independent valuation of the animal's worth. She said she had no choice but to sign the form to allow the animal, which had registered positive in a bovine TB test, to be killed. It was the final defeat in her battle to prevent her nine-month pedigree bull from falling victim to the Government's strategy for controlling TB in cattle.

The slaughter was carried out in the stall at New Park Farm in East Ogwell, South Devon where Fern has been isolated from the rest of Mrs Kremer's 12-strong herd of rare-breed Dexters. She did not watch the procedure, which was carried out by a skilled markswoman from the local abattoir, but did witness her pedigree pride and joy being brought lifeless up towards the farm buildings in a tractor trailer.

Mrs Kremers, who is 63, now has to wait for several days for the results of a post-mortem which will establish whether Fern actually had TB.She said: "I just think it is absolutely horrendous, outrageous. If they had a test that could prove he had TB I would be in agreement that he had to go, but this test doesn't prove it."He may have tested positive because he is immune to it, and if we kill our immune cattle we kill our strongest."

I'm not happy that he goes but he has to, according to the rules."

She said the Government's policy on slaughtering all cattle which were shown as "reactors" in TB tests was wrong, because only about 30 per cent testing positive actually proved to have TB. This would only be established with a post-mortem."It is a farce from beginning to end," she said. "This testing and slaughtering isn't stopping the disease at all, in fact it has increased tenfold in ten years."

She will now receive £2,100 from the Government, several times what she had been expecting. However, she says that Fern, who comes from brindled stock, is probably irreplaceable. "At the end of the day I still would rather have him than the cheque," she said." I was hoping it would be less and then I could have turned it down and taken it to court. It is not just about my cattle. Something has to come out of this."Mrs Kremers secured a Government apology that the first test carried out on Fern in December, which was positive, was flawed. However, a second test in early March was also positive, meaning it was only a matter of time before Fern would be destroyed.

Mrs Kremers is urging the Government to cull of badgers, which many farmers believe are the root cause of the explosion of the disease among cattle.

Richard Haddock, chairman of the regional board of the National Farmers' Union, said he applauded what Mrs Kremers had done in refusing to sign the valuation form until she knew what value she would get for her calf. Mr Haddock, who has one of the largest herds in the Westcountry, near Kingswear in South Devon, said: "We would advise every farmer not to sign a valuation form until they know what they are going to get for the animal."

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is deciding whether to go ahead with a badger cull.

A spokesman defended the use of the current bovine TB test. He said: "The skin test has a high degree of accuracy -- 75-95 per cent. It is scientifically, legally and internationally recognised as an effective diagnostic test."

And at least on that bit of this whole shoddy episode, the 'governmennt spokesman' was absolutely right. The skin test shows exposure to m.bovis. A deadly group 3 zoonotic pathogen which has no business being at anywhere at all near either cattle, badgers or anything else which is susceptible, including human beings.

Fern now joins almost 30,000 cattle culled as reactors in the last 12 months. We've said it before and we'll say it again; too many bTb parasites are in a feeding frenzy on this part of the Defra budget to let go. It is a beneficial crisis that is fuelling itself. The use of rt-PCR can and will identify infected areas, whether these are badger sets and latrines or capable of onward transmission from cattle, deer, feral cats or the man-in-the-moon. But will our Minister for Fisheries use it? We doubt it. Too many of his 'advisors' would be on the scrap heap if he did.

Oh and the chances are it could identify H5N1 bird flu too - which would save an 8 day wait as VLA bugger off for the weekend instead of testing material from that dead Scottish swan.

" Dr Roger Breeze patiently points out below, if the existing technology were used
"we are actually talking about moving Scotland to the head of Europe for about £350,000 "In addition, it would cost perhaps £12,000 a year for new test kits. The RAPID RT-PCR replaces procedures that require high containment laboratories with enormous fixed operating costs. With RT-PCR costs are low because you already have all the other infrastructure and the trained people. And far from waiting for a week for results, you can test accurately for positive infection, pinpoint it, report on it and respond to it within hours.

Exactly. More on this at www.warmwell.com

A Comedy of Errors

When the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) was set up in 1996 to record the births, marriages and deaths of all UK cattle in response to EU tracing requirements, little did those of us who have to operate within it realise just how skewed its information would become when let loose on the great and the good of the scientific world.

We have already told you of the '14 million' movements made by GB cattle - which are in fact movement of data relating to a single bovine movement in our post:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/02/mistake-mischievious-or-misleading.html. But not content with this much publicised gaff, the 'ologists of Oxford with a little help from our very own VLA appear to have made another. (only one Matt? !!)

Matthew 1, has been trawling. No, he's not taken up fishing instead of farming - same minister, little point - he was searching the net (fishy terms again) for information on something totally different and came across a piece from 'Nature'. published in 2005.

Cattle movements and bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain
M. Gilbert1, A. Mitchell2, D. Bourn3, J. Mawdsley2, R. Clifton-Hadley2 and W. Wint3
Top of page
For 20 years, bovine tuberculosis (BTB) has been spreading in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) and is now endemic in the southwest and parts of central England and in southwest Wales, and occurs sporadically elsewhere. Although its transmission pathways remain poorly understood, (no they aren't - ed) the disease's distribution was previously modelled statistically by using environmental variables and measures of their seasonality1. Movements of infected animals (that would be all types of 'animals', we hope?) have long been considered a critical factor in the spread of livestock diseases, as reflected in strict import/export regulations, the extensive movement restrictions imposed during the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak2, 3, the tracing procedures after a new case of BTB has been confirmed and the Government's recently published strategic framework for the sustainable control on BTB4.

Since January 2001 it has been mandatory for stock-keepers in Great Britain to notify the British Cattle Movement Service of all cattle births, movements and deaths5.

Biological Control and Spatial Ecology CP160/12, Université Libre de Bruxelles, avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Weybridge, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB, UK
Environmental Research Group Oxford Limited, PO Box 346, Oxford OX1 3QE, UK
Correspondence to: W. Wint3 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to W.W. (Email: william.wint@zoo.ox.ac.uk).
Received 20 January 2005; Accepted 18 March 2005

Despite the extraordinary pedigrees of those involved with this 'research' - using those 14 million postcards - we would point out, (with the greatest respect of course) that ;

1. BCMS was set up in 1996, (not January 2001.)

2. Since 01/07/1996 (July 1996) all cattle have had to have passports which were issued by BCMS and which accompanied them on any movement, tearoff postcards from which are sent back to BCMS and sometimes generate 4 movements of data, even to an abattoir. And to generate a passport, first one has to register a birth...

3. Cattle identification at this time consisted of a herd number which was both letters and numbers, a 5 digit individual number plus a UK stamp.

4. In January 1998, double tags were made compulsory. A distance readable one (which falls out for a hobby) plus another in the opposite ear, which could be either plastic or metal.

5. On July 1st 2000, all numerical tags were introduced. A 6 figure herd number (no letters) plus UK, and a 6 figure idividual number, or 5 plus a revolving 'check' digit.

And so it has been ever since. No more changes. And animals recorded in that 1996 database, holding passports can now enter the food chain.

It is difficult reading the 'Nature' report to understand that, as the authors state quite authoratively that BCMS database started in 'January 2001'. But by this time Matt 5 had registered 419 cattle births on its non existent database and about the same 'Off' movements. He had no 'On' movements of bought in cattle on the nonexistent database - but was about to celebrate the New Year by going under restriction with bTb, just like Mr. Jones in our post below.

As bTb hits (another) 'closed herd', farmer wants answers...

In the same Welsh newsapaper, The County Times which carried the story of little Emma Jones and her 'exploding' neck glands, described as 'Atypical tuberculosis', (see post below http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/03/more-from-wales-and-name-they-dare-not.html) comes the story of a Welsh farmer also seeking answers:

"A CAERSWS farmer has spoken of his shock after two of his closed herd tested positive for TB despite being disease free for 33 years. Brian Jones is angry that despite his closed herd of 112 Holstein Friesians having never come into contact with any other cattle, they have still been infected with TB. Mr Jones believes the problem could be caused by a nearby badger sett as he said badgers also suffer from bovine TB and transmission of the disease between the two species is common.

“If badgers are responsible for the disease infecting my livestock then it stands to reason that unless the TB is also tackled in the sett, my cattle will continue to be infected on a regular basis,” said Mr Jones.“I’m bloody angry, I made a deliberate decision when I started back in 1973 that I would run a closed herd here for the explicit reason that I did not want to buy in any diseased stock,” added Mr Jones.“As a closed herd my livestock do not come into contact with any other cattle, so the question must be asked; how did my cattle become infected with TB?” asked Mr Jones.“If a reservoir of the disease remains active in the wildlife population, it presents a constant danger to livestock. If we are serious about eradicating bovine TB then the disease must be tackled simultaneously in livestock and wildlife,” added Mr Jones.

Gareth Vaughan, Farmers Union of Wales (FUW) President, said: “Farmers are playing their part. Infected livestock have to be isolated immediately before being taken away and destroyed. It’s important that decisive action is taken against diseased badgers.”

No further comment necessary here we feel. Been there, done that and got a heap of dead cattle to show for it. Unless and until the source of Mr. Jones' bTb outbreak is sorted, then his cattle will keep reacting to their 60 day tests. For years. Stressful, expensive and damned unecessary years as they keep having a 'challenge' from a fatal zoonosis which has no place in the environment at all. It didn't fly in with the man-in-the-moon, and if there is no bought in cattle contact...?

Cattle, and particularly cattle from 'closed herds' like Mr. Jones' are the canaries singing the tune that protected the coalminers. That Defra have ignored their message for so long is not just stupid, it is downright reckless and ultimately dangerous.

The ' robust' basis of Krebs.

Over the last months we have sought to inform our readers what actually happened on the farms involved in the RBCT. Matt 5, under restriction when the trial started with his organic Anguses, excluded to fester in his own little mini hotspot. Never mind the 50 per cent of land from which the teams were banned, the ISG's interpretation created their own exclusions as well.

Matt 3 in a Reactive area, where the Wildlife Unit took nearly 3 years to react to Matt's cattle. And on some farms didn't come at all. Matt 6 was in a Proactive in the far North. That fared a bit better, but Police action was more robust than some other areas and he did get 'Krebbed' every year. Once only for about a week, and not at all of course in 2001, because of FMD.

But it is on the basis of the first year's number crunching from all this chaos that so much of the 'Back off Badgers' polemic is based. And don't forget those traps. 69 percent trashed or interfered with. That combined with the 50 percent of land 'unavailable' to the team meant that in some areas they only accounted for 20 percent of their target. VLA said that - not us by the way.

But one splendid submission to the EFRA committee deserves our attention. That the Committee should have issued such a woolly and vaccuous statement after reading this is unbelievable. No it's not, these are politicians.

BTB 33 was submitted by a senior member of the Wildlife team with over 12 years experience who operated the RBCT and he says:

1. BRO's(Badger removals) worked well when the land being culled was made fully available. (We would guess he is referring to the drastic reduction made to areas avaible for BRO's from 7km down to 1 km and then only on land cattle had grazed)

2. Where (problem) badgers were totally removed from a farm, that farm after reactor cattle had been culled, often stayed clear of Tb for up to 10 years.

3. We stayed on farms for up to three months to ensure ALL badgers were caught - unlike the Krebs 8 days per year trapping regime.

4. You do not need large scale trapping for it to be effective, if the culling is robust from the start.

5. Krebs had too many anomolies and weaknesses in the strategy for it to be successful. It took us four years to steer away from trapping setts that had been interfered with by Animal Rights Activists, to be able to trap badgers anywhere, in order to eliminate them. That was only one of a raft of operational problems we faced and had to endure.

6. Limited trapping - eight days per year with Krebbs - has little effect if carried out late in the year. The effect being that areas went almost two years without an effective cull. (In some cases three, or not at all)

7. The costs for a future culling policy must NOT be based on Krebs costings. [ snipped ]
Krebs was ridiculously expensive for what it delivered.

8. ...... 'Professionals' should remain involved [ snipped ] to ensure that animal welfare and humaneness remain number one priority.

9. Compulsory entry onto farms is a must. Krebs has proven that wide scale non co operation does make it nigh on impossible to operate effectively.

10. The Krebs Reactive strategy ended prematurely in my opinion. The results used also showed us that in areas we had never operated in (J2 and H1 which had a very limited cull) also displayed the same increase in bTb outside of the areas. That has to be another logical reason for the increase, as it is clearly not badger- culling related. This point has yet to be satisfactorily answered.

11. The combined knowledge of the staff involved in all the previous culling strategies has never been utilised or sought when putting togather a Policy.

.............. Scientists do not have all the answers and most certainly Krebs doesn't. The Trial has far too many flaws in it to be trusted to produce meaningful evidence. I know what happened on the ground - the scientists only have the results which we provided them with to work with. I know that those results could and should have been much better and useful than they currently are.

Nobody - and I do mean nobody, working on the Trial at grass roots level has ever believed that operating under the too strict and inflexible regime that Krebs put in place could work successfully. All common sense answers to everyday problems were too often ignored because "things had to carried out scientifically" to mean anything. The whole basis of Krebs was to remove badgers off the ground. For the first four years, that effort was farcical due to restrictions placed upon us. Repeated requests to change operating methods were ignored. With that in mind, how much weight do we give the ISG report, detailing their 'robust' findings to the Minister? If it were down to me and my staff, very little."

There is little we can add to that, except to agree with every word, and point out that the 'magic circle' of the ISG is led and the Krebs Trial overseen by a 'scientist' who has spent the last three years chasing 14 million postcards , thinking they were cattle.

Leading the Horse to Water ..

.... or in this case the Minister for Animal Health, Ben Bradshaw MP, to the 'silver bullet' which can, and will identify which groups of 'wildlife' are providing the environment with enough mycobacterium bovis, to infect a small army.

Reported in this week's Farmers Guardian, PCR technology is described as:

* Developed by the US military to detect biological warfare agents.
* Used in the US to test cattle lesions for Tb
* Portable 'mini lab' has been developed in UK by Enigma diagnostics, an offshoot of the MoD.
* PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) works by using an enzyme and a cycle of heating and cooling to generate billions of copies of a cell's DNA. Using florescent light, and in the field not a laboratory, the system can then identify bTb - or any other bacteria or virus - by comparing it with a known sample.
*The system developed by Enigma gives an on-the-spot diagnosis within 30 minutes.

An earlier variant of this the American 'smart cycler' was recommended and offered to the UK government in 2001, to help detect FMD. It was refused.

Now this stunning technology has been trialled in Glos. and Oxfordshire to see how it performed in the field.
Researchers from Warwick university inserted soil from potentially infected badger setts, and faeces from their latrines found on farms in an endemically infected area into the box. The results indicated the extent to which the infected badgers are at large in 'hotspot' areas, with evidence of bTb found in 78 percent of the 60 farms sampled. 56 percent of the latrines on nine farms proved positive for m.bovis. On farms where infection was found, an average of 43 percent of setts, and 29 percent of latrines were positive. Using this technology, no 'wipe out' then and the almost 60 percent of healthy badger groups left in peace. Good stuff?

More extensive research showed that in Glos. bTB hotspots, 100 percent of setts and latrines were positive, while in Oxfordshire where there is little or no bTb flagging up in the cattle, the results were all negative.

A paper in the Royal Society's Biology Letters journal, said that the results of this work showed that the technology can differentiate 'clean setts' from the 'problem setts', containing infected badgers.

Mr. Bradshaw, our Ben described this as " A potentially important development" and said that he had " asked government scientists for an urgent review of the work".

We would prefer him to ask Warwick's researchers. Not that we are cynical, you understand but each little PCR box may just negate the need for one 'government scientist', and do turkeys vote for Christmas?

See link for The University of Warwick's department of Biological Sciences press release which describes its research using PCR diagnosis to differentiate between bTb 'infected' setts, and 'clean' ones.

More from Wales - and a name they dare not speak..

In our posting You'll find a Welcome in the Hillsides...:
http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_bovinetb_archive.html , we told you of problems on the playing fields of two small schools in Wales, Dolfur and Kerry. Badgers were digging up the areas where the children played and Tb levels among the Welsh school children were rising, in this area and in the Rhonda.

This week local newspaper, The County Times reported further developments in the ongoing saga:

"THE mother of a young TB victim is angry over the lack of information available to her about the source of her daughter’s illness. Donna Jones’ four year old daughter was diagnosed last year with Atypical TB. She has since been unable to find out anything more about the likely cause than it has an ‘environmental source’.

This news comes in the same week the Government announced the number of TB cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland had risen to over 7,000 a year - the highest since the 1980s.

In October 2005 Donna Jones’ daughter Emma developed two lumps on her neck which on first examination doctors believed were caused by a glandular problem. The lumps on Emma’s neck later burst and a consultant paediatrician from the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital diagnosed her as suffering from Atypical TB.

Emma was prescribed a course of two separate antibiotics to take for six months. Donna’s distress over her daughter’s illness is borne out of her frustration at not being able to find what causes the illness, and how and why her daughter contracted it when her three other children have remained unaffected.“All anyone will tell us is that she may have caught it from wildlife, I’ve asked the local vets and they say they don’t know anything about it but I want to know where, how and what she has caught it from,” said Donna, who lives in Kerry.“I’m annoyed I cannot find the information I want. I want to know where she has caught it from and how come my three other children haven’t been affected,” she said.“There is no information saying if she should be in school, there is no information on how she can contract it, I want the truth and some honest answers.”

Donna quizzed Emma’s consultant paediatrician and local GPs on the infection but says they only confirm the illness has an environmental source. A spokesman for the National Public Health Service said: “There is no such condition as Atypical TB, it is a mycobacterial infection which can cause a whole range of infections some of which are TB.” He said that mycobacterial infections are usually acquired from the environment but transmission can occur from animals to humans although it is not common."

County Times 30 March 2006

This child developed lumps on her neck, which later burst, and were described as "Atypical Tuberculosis, which she may have contracted from wildlife". Sounds fairly 'typical' to us. Lumps / lesions in neck or throat glands which then burst? Something like this then. http://www.warmwell.com/tbbadger.html

Tb spillover - sheep.

That can't be right. In 1997, John Bourne told a questioner on the subject that sheep do not get Tb. He's quite wrong on that - as with many other pronouncements, but we won't dwell on that - and the disease has been found in New Zealand sheep. And now in Worcestershire. But in which sheep, lamb or ewe, and from where is not yet clear.

After FMD, body piercing for sheep became mandatory, with a tag inserted in very small fragile ears at birth, and then every time it changed home. So when it finally made it to the abattoir, the last tag it carried should have enabled Defra to trace it from the unique holding number on its eartag. Immediately. And certainly before any disease spread. A mound of movement forms accompany all consignments of sheep and the top copies are lodged with Trading standards departments of the local councils. All done in the name of tracebility. Simple. Well that's the theory.

So why are Worcs. SVS contacting consignees of the almost 20 batches of sheep sold through Worcester cattle market three months ago, trying to identify the owner of just one sheep which turned up at an abattoir with 'something' looking a tad suspicious, so that a test can arranged for any cattle they may have?

Duty vets at the abattoir sent this 'something' off to VLA, presumably labelled 'something odd from a Worcester sheep' but somewhere along the line the sheep's identity was - errr lost. We'll give them the benefit of the doubt in this case and assume it actually was from a sheep, and that they originally did label its identity. (Remember the 3 year fiasco into sheep BSE that turned out to be experiments on cattle brains? We haven't.) Anyway, the sample was positive for m.bovis and now the fun and games start as a notifiable zoonosis has to be traced to source.

A couple of points here. Firstly the sheep identity tracking system, involving a new ear ring every time it blinks and a mound of paper work, has not exactly covered itself in glory. And secondly, when John Bourne noted in his report to Bern 2004 that 76 percent of badgers culled in Hereford / Worcs area during the last few years of the Interim strategy were confirmed with clinical tuberculosis, that this should spill into anything else which had the misfortune to fall over it should not come as any great surprise to anyone. Even if the good Professor assured his audience during that question and answer session that "Sheep do not get Tb".

Then again the sample could have been from a cow.......

Airbrushing

We are quite 'peturbed' to find that much information on bTb which has been peer reviewed and well publicised is subject to 'airbrushing' by organisations who really ought to know better.

This site has been provided with a reply from the RSPCA concerning a letter which they received querying their support for the 'Back off Badgers Campaign'.

We quote from it below;

"You state that the RSPCA is a political organisation. I can confirm that charities may seek changes in government policy. In fact, this is one of the ways charities are able to meet their aims and secure public benefit. Indeed, the RSPCA was set up in 1824 to help not only those animals that had already suffered, but to bring about lasting change by lobbying parliament on aspects affecting the welfare of all animals. Such work by the Society's founding fathers led, for example, to a ban on cruel dog fighting in 1835, and the Protection of Animals Act in 1911 * which is soon to be replaced with the long-awaited Animal Welfare Bill.

All of the Society's political and campaigning activities, including the current battle to stop the unnecessary slaughter and inevitable suffering of thousands of badgers, takes careful account of Charity Law and the guidance issued by the Charity Commission.

They want to stop the suffering of badgers? Not enough to accept that tuberculosis is a wicked, delibilitating and fatal condidtion in any species and not enough to print pictures like this:

http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2006/02/alternative-offensive-cartoon.html

They continue:
"The government set up an eight-year trial to study the impact of badger culling on the incidence of bovine TB in cattle. The recently published results showed that badger culling actually increases TB infection in cattle in surrounding areas and achieves only a limited reduction within the areas targeted. The chairman of the Independent Scientific Group, responsible for overseeing the culling trials, has warned that the Government ignored the scientific advice provided and misinterpreted the results of the trials. He has stated that a badger cull will almost certainly make the situation worse and that it would be better to focus on cattle controls.

Given the RSPCA's raison d'être is to prevent cruelty and promote kindness to animals, our opposition to a proposed cull of a protected species which goes against sound science should need no further explanation."

And needless to say, it does not get one either (explanation) Well there isn't one really is there? Previous trials have shown that if the infected badgers are removed, Tb in cattle just - disappears. But the RSPCA's flat earth world obviously begins in 1997, with the diminutive figure of John Bourne. Nothing prior to that then? No Thornbury, East Offaly or even the 4 county trials? No cattle to cattle trials in Ireland and no earlier attempts at pre movement testing? And 30,000 dead cattle are just fine with the Royal Society for their Protection.

No attempt either to establish the extraordinarily weak basis for the Krebs' RBCT in that its whole basis to 'cull badgers' in two comparative areas in the first couple of years at least, were so badly carried out that in some instances it only accounted for 20% of its target, leaving 80 % shaken, stirred and stressed - and that is VLA's conclusion. John Bourne doesn't need one. A conclusion that is. Peer review the work? You have to be joking.
"We are the experts" he told his audience at the last ISG meeting. In what he did not say.

The RSPCA continues:
"With regard to the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, where possible, every effort was made to address potential animal welfare problems before they happened. Pressure was put on the Government from the start to ensure that animals were not slaughtered inhumanely and to allow the RSPCA to monitor the slaughtering. This took almost six weeks of liaison before DEFRA agreed that Society staff should be allowed onto specific slaughter sites. We continued to voice our concerns, but I must point out that when the RSPCA did voice its concerns in a press release, which was nearly always preceded by a letter to the Minister, the press had no obligation to print our concerns. We could not insist that they carried our story. "

Now hang on a minute. "We could not insist that they (the press) carried our story".
So in this instance you printed your own? I don't remember any adverts during FMD protesting at the totally needless slaughter of 12 million animals? But hell, they were farmed animals so who cares. Well the RSPCA should care. Animals are animals, and many of us did care and care a lot that 'valued and cherished' flocks and herds were shot and piled high, when PCR technology was available to identify and vaccination was available to ring fence. But the RSPCA were content to "monitor the slaughtering". So that's alright then. They must have missed the 'cowboys' on the quadbikes aiming rifles at terrified cows and calves, and the lorries of dead sheep - but some not so dead - arriving for burial.

"The RSPCA made numerous approaches to the Government from the start of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease relating to a number of aspects of the outbreak which directly impinged upon animal welfare. The Society issued over 20 foot-and-mouth related press releases, circulated our views to hundreds of national and regional newspapers as well as conducted a substantial number of television and radio interviews. The Government, like everybody else, could choose not to act on our recommendations. The Society reacted in a number of ways to try and alleviate the suffering of the animals involved. Members of the organisation met the Ministers from both the Commons and the Lords directly involved with the management of the crisis and senior DEFRA officials in order to express our concerns about the welfare aspects involved with the cull and other issues. The RSPCA's Director General and the Chief Veterinary Officer were regular correspondents with the various Ministers involved."

But not to the extent of taking out an advert at their expense to oppose 'government' policy?

Keeping their powder dry then. And their cheque book handy? What will this one be called if not 'donation' or 'loan'?

"Any solution - as long as it's free....."

With apologies to Henry Ford, that was the message from Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett MP at the launch today of Defra's pre movement testing regime. But then again Mrs. Beckett is used to 'freebies' at the taxpayers' expense, the Mail on Sunday reporting that she was one of three Cabinet ministers claiming £70K each for 'mortgage benefit payments' on properties which either did not have a mortgage, or had a smaller one than was being claimed for. Now ain't that a surprise?

For Mrs. Beckett the figure quoted was £69,757 on a mortgage of .... nil.

We will look( the lady said) at any solution 'farmers' propose - as long as it does not involve Defra in any more costs. Anything? Ahh, you want us to cull those pesky tuberculous badgers and get you off the hook do you? Gorrrdon Brown getting short of the readies is he? No more pension funds to raid? Defra under pressure from the Treasury then?
Sorry readers - between non existant mortgages and Treasury rip offs, we digress.

We have explained our opposition to pre movement testing many times on this site. Not because the intradermal skin test is rubbish. It is not. But because of a) the false sense of security it may give to cattle buyers who do not fully understand its latency - including the 8 week post test exposure period and the most curious exclusion of cattle under 15 months for this year - and b) without action on the maintenance reservoir of bTb, it will have minimal effect at all on bTb, but will cost the industry a packet. Been there, done that.

see : http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/05/to-test-or-not-to-test.html

and : http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/06/pre-movement-testing-sorry-we-got-it.html

We also described for our readers the previous attempts by Ireland and Cornwall to control bTb with only this spanner in the toolbox. It didn't work then, and it will not work now. But hey, it's the farmers who are paying - so what the heck....

see: http://bovinetb.blogspot.com/2005/04/anything-you-can-do.html

And the coverage of cattle "pre movement tested, to prevent the spread of bovine TB" on breakfast TV was very convincing. Naive, ill informed if not downright misleading maybe .... but convincing nontheless. And not even the vet (Andrew Biggs) happily jabbing cattle, brought up the instances of farmers like our Matthew 1 (below) and others on this site who have 'No bought in cattle' to blame for ongoing, pernicious, stressful and expensive breakdowns.

Matthew 1 is under restriction - again.

In September 2004, we introduced ourselves in a thumbnail sketch of each of the contributers in the posts Matthew Comes Out...:


"This site is managed by half a dozen farmers from Cornwall to Carlisle. Most have had their cattle herds under restriction - 2 are still in that position, and 2 reckon they soon will be. We're genuine carrot crunchers - not an 'ology amongst us - that's Richard's department!'

Matthew 1 moved a herd from Cornwall to the Midlands, sucklers and dairy. It was both pre and post movement tested, and was clear at the routine test a couple of years later. This nucleus was then moved back to Cornwall in September 1992, and joined by a small dairy herd from Derbyshire, which was 'closed' and had had no problems with Tb since accredition in the 1950's. A post movement test in Cornwall was all clear, but 4 neighbours were under restriction. At the annual test in late 1993, this herd had 2 Reactors and a dozen or more Inconclusives.

The farm had no cattle to cattle contact with neighbours, being in a triangle with woods and a main road as boundaries. There were a few deer, and several 'shared' badger setts with much field damage to crops. Over the next 18 months the herd had tests every 60 days which revealed a 'drip feed' of Inconclusives with a few being taken as 3x IR. During this time a BRO (Badger Removal Operation) was applied for by MAFF, and although granted, animal activists caused problems for the wildlife operatives and it took a long time to complete.

Cages were trashed or removed, and Matthew 1 was shown (by the wildlife team) where a cage had had a badger in it, and been moved to a field gateway, put down, and then removed towards tyre tracks of a 'vehicle' which was not in the ownership of either the team or Matthew. Did we say Tb takeaways?

Five farms were under restriction here, and the badgers were moved on. Where did they end up? Your place or mine?

After the BRO was finally completed, all 5 farms went clear within 2 or 3 tests. The farmers tried to keep the infected setts clear for at least 12 months, then slowly allowed badgers to restock, keeping a close eye on their cattle herd tests.

Currently the area is rumbling again, and Matthew 1 has had IR's at the last test. Something is stirring in the woods - and it's not bambi."

To bring you up to date with our SW Matthew's problems, the IR's 18 months ago went clear but as all his neighbours were under restriction again, Matthew was not hopeful that this situation would continue. And last summer he found a dessicated carcass of a badger behind some wood in a barn. That was not good news. A routine test in November revealed several inconclusives, all of whom were retested at 60 days. In January most were clear, but four were not and these were retested again last week. This test showed one animal completely clear, but 2 were 3 x IR and will be slaughtered. The fourth was a full blown reactor.

Matthew has maintained a 'closed' herd, - that is he has bought in no cattle - since early 1999. The farm is on annual testing and because of problems on neighbouring farms, Matthew has tested a couple of times at 6 months. So in seven years, the herd has had eight or nine tests.

The taxpayer deserves an explanation as to where this breakdown has come from methinks.

Our Ben, Rear Admiral Bradshaw may have slashed the farmer's share of the Tb budget, but Matthew's 3 cows are only the start of the gravy train. They will be transported to slaughter. Shot and postmortemed. Samples will be dispatched to VLA Weybridge for culturing. Paperwork will be generated to put a restriction order on the farm, and to give the result of the postmortems. If lesions are found, then the Public Health department clanks into action with dire warnings of infectious disease status, and offering visits from the Tb liason team, for X rays, tests and counselling. So many people employed you see. Local SVS office will then advise Matthew that his next test is due in May, and in 60 days time the whole rigmarole starts again. Matthew's herd is gathered up for another two days of jabs and readings by a Defra vet, or an LVI practitioner.

And unless and until the culprits have expired, that is the depressing merry go round Matthew faces for the forseeable future. And his cattle? It's Russian roulette for them.

RSPCA "under investigation"

From the Sunday Telegraph today.

RSPCA investigated over 'political' badgers campaign
By Jasper Copping

The RSPCA is being investigated over claims that it has abused its charitable status with a controversial 'political' campaign against a proposed badger cull. The Charity Commission, which regulates charities, is looking into allegations that the society has breached guidelines by getting too involved in political activities.

The inquiry comes as a leading landowner and lawyer is considering mounting a legal challenge to the RSPCA's status.

The furore has flared up over the organisation's "Back off Badgers" campaign against Government proposals to cull the animal over fears that it spreads tuberculosis among cattle. The charity disputes this and has run a high-profile marketing drive, encouraging people to write to the Government before the consultation period on the cull ended last week.

More than 25,000 people responded, but the campaign - which is thought to have cost several thousand pounds - has angered critics who say that it is not the role of a charity to lobby in this way.

Stanley Brodie QC, a landowner in Ayrshire, Scotland, said: "For a long time, the RSPCA have been doing things which don't fit with their charitable status and I got very angry when I saw this latest campaign."

The commission says charities are permitted to engage in political campaigning only if it "furthers the purposes of the charity" and only to the extent that it is "justified by the resources applied".

But Mr Brodie said: "The guidelines are misleading and give far too much latitude to charities. "It makes it seem like any political activity is acceptable as long as it can be said to be ancillary to the organisation's charitable aims and that is not right at all. "The RSPCA are seeking to reverse Government policy and their activities cannot be said to be ancillary to their aims. They are objectives in themselves."

Since taking up the issue, Mr Brodie has attracted dozens of supporters angered by the political tone of the campaign and who believe that the RSPCA has ignored the welfare of cattle in trying to protect badgers.

Bovine TB kills 23,000 cattle each year and costs the taxpayer an annual £90 million. "There is a lot of animosity towards the RSPCA at the moment," he added. "People are fed up with their activities. It has been taken over by individuals with a political agenda and is being used as a pressure group. "It is perfectly at liberty to engage in political campaigning but if it does it should not maintain its tax-free status."

Becky Hawkes, an RSPCA spokesman, said the charity took "careful account of charity law and the guidance issued by the Charity Commission". But Nick Herbert, the Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs, said: "There's a fine line between legitimate campaigning for charitable objects and seeking to get involved in politics and I think the RSPCA has been crossing that line."

John Gallagher, a former Government vet, has also voiced concerns over the campaign. "I've been extremely disappointed by it. It has been political rather than based on animal welfare."

Tim Bonner, of the Countryside Alliance, said: "They have wasted a vast amount of money on campaigns which are, in part, motivated by political as well as animal welfare factors." He added: "Their agenda has become more of an animal rights one than an animal welfare one."

In 2004, the RSPCA was cleared of similar allegations of political campaigning over its support for a fox hunting ban. This time, however, the allegations have been given extra weight by Mr Brodie's threatened legal action.

Meanwhile, Sir David Attenborough, the prominent wildlife broadcaster, has spoken out against the cull, saying it would not halt an epidemic of tuberculosis in cattle. "There will be at best little benefit," he said. "It is unlikely to decrease significantly the incidence of TB in cattle and it may make it worse - at a great cost, financially, in public discord and to badgers."

Clarification & 'Basic points'.

We have received a very useful comment from 'A. Ross' on the site which we post in full below.

"I sympathise with all of the farmers who have lost well-loved animals to bTB, or the ineffective test we are lumbered with.
While I agree that there is likely to be some infection from badgers to cattle, and that this should be prevented, I think there are some basic points which need to be addressed.The results of the study by the ISG clearly show that unless badgers are exterminated across very large areas of the country, the 'edge effect' will likely cause an increase in bTB. Obviously nobody wants that. To avoid it, ALL badgers in a very large area would need to be killed. This is simply not possible. Therefore, a wholesale badger cull is unworkable as a cure for the problem. What is needed is a decent test for bTB in both badgers and cattle, which does not give the high rate of error of the current test. Once bTB is detected or suspected in an area, all cattle and all badgers would be tested, and only those with the disease would be killed, leaving the healthy animals alive. This would not only minimise the number of cattle which would need to be killed, but would also reduce the 'perturbation' of the badgers' territories. As most of us farmers/landowners are unwilling/unable to catch and kill badgers, this should be done by Defra, and supervised by badger experts. Using this system, in conjunction with a vastly improved movement testing regime (using the new improved test), should quickly reduce the incidence of bTB over large areas, and avoid many of the problems associated with a wholesale cull of wildlife.Initially, the movement testing regime should be stepped up, at Defra's expense, to prevent any movement of infected cattle to new areas. After all, this is how bTB spread to many areas after Foot & Mouth. "

Having experienced the intradermal test for the last - too many - years, we have no problems with it. Neither in fact does the rest of the world who use it as a primary diagnostic tool. That it shows what are referred to as 'false positives' is a measure of its success, in that it measures the immune response in skin of an animal which has had contact withor exposure to m.bovis, and in at least two thirds of the cattle slaughtered, before lesions have been developed or any infectivety established.

You say "there is likely to be some infection from badgers to cattle, and that this should be prevented". On this site we have told how Defra's bio security advice is as much use a wet paper bag in the face of a determined badger. That they can climb up to 16 feet, excavate to 15 feet, slide under sheeted gates only 4 inches off the ground and easily access feed troughs 4 feet off the ground, which Defra admit is "too high for cattle to use" is all known. That their latrines are fencable, but 30 percent of urinations occur at pasture is also logged. And that in that highly infectious dribble, a badger with kidney lesions can void up to 30ml at a time of a liquid containing 300,000 ml of colony forming units of bTb in each single 1 ml.,and just 70 cfu's are needed to infect a cow. Under those circumstances, bio security is impossible. Cheeseman was asked in Shropshire many years ago how to keep infected badgers and cattle apart, and his reply to his horrified audience was " You can't. You get rid of your cattle".

So we are full circle back to dear old John Bourne and the ISG. The 'edge' effect and the need to 'exteriminate, exterminate, exterminate', all the goddam badgers from Cornwall to Hadrians Wall. Absolutely wrong. Emotive claptrap. But it's done its job and widened the opinion gap between people who genuinely want the problem solved for the benefit of all. That way pseudo science can comfortably benefit from more cash in an attempt to fill it. Cynical aren't we? You bet.

We opposed Krebs from day one on the very points that we refer to above. That a raft of epidemiological information was already known and that 'postulating' such information under the gold standard for such excercises (Evans Postulates) made Krebs totally unecessary. A worthless excercise. That 'perturbation' would make things a whole lot worse, and that the way Bourne was going to implement Krebs' proposals would lead to chaos. Why the surprise? But even worse, why believe it?

We quote below from this weeks' Vet. Record where we believe the points you make re. the ISG work are covered admirably.

"The huge scale of the exercise, requirement to train large numbers of trapping staff, interference by animal rights activists, intimidation of landowners and lack of co operation of many of them, all presented problems. (and hotspots left within the Krebs circles of farms under restriction at the time the trial started, and who did not 'qualify')
Now the trial has ended, the interim results (1st and second years only) show that while the ISG claim that 'on farms where trapping was allowed' , the efficiency was 60 - 80 per cent, the overall efficiency of trapping throughout the trial areas was remarkably poor at between 20 -60 percent. (As we have quoted PQ's many times that in 2003, the tally of trashed traps and traps stolen intact, was 69 percent of the ISG target)

In the trials, the trapping of only 20 percent of the badgers implies disturbance and likely disposal of many of the remaining 80 percent of the population of infected badgers. Even a trapping rate of 60 percent would be disastrous, but removal of such a small number of infected animals as 20 per cent is obviously likely to have caused enormous disruption.

However the trials do provide a valuable cautionary tale. They have shown that if the task of culling is done ineffectively for long enough and over a large area, it can produce catastrophic problems. The approach used would have spread Tb amongst the badgers, This would occur not only by causing diseased animals to move outside their territories, but by stressing those latently infected cases to develop, fulminating infection leading to disease. "

This erudite over view of Krebs shows just why the ISG are saying that huge areas need to be culled to have any effect, and to minimise the 'edge' effect. The report concludes:

Having first hand experience of Tb in badgers and cattle and attempts at its control, we strongly caution against any more 'quasi -control ' methods. We fully endorse the ISG's stated opinion that piecemeal snaring or trapping will make matters considerably worse. Despite the misery and disruption farmers have had to endure, and the carnage of their stock, it is unrealistic to expect farmers to carry out an effective cull and nor should they be pushed into doing so. The eradication of Tb, a notifiable disease, is entirely the responsibility of the Government. That also includes controlling its reservoir host the badger. Also, it should not be forgotten that Tb maims and kills badgers and is a welfare problem for them as well.
We disagree with the ISG's assertion that culling would need to be carried out over huge areas to avoid the 'edge effect'. and consider this effect to be the consequence of the very poor trpping efficiency causing the dispersal of infected badgers. This assertion is thus unessessarily alarmist".

That bTb moved to Cumbria and the north in cattle after FMD is well logged. That when the testing regime eventually caught up with these very few cattle, and they were destroyed leaving no residual infection within the herd is not so widely explained. A post movement test of breeding cattle would have found them, and hopefully may still do so. That they failed to transmit within the host herd is noteworthy I think and mirrors Irish cattle- cattle trials.

The vets from whom we quote, are in agreement that carbon monoxide gassing of setts in daylight would prevent any such peturbation, would be efficacious and humane. We favour leaving strong main setts preferably identified by RT-PCR technology as 'biological buffers' to prevent any territorial fighting of 'disperers'. We would keep monitoring 'off sets' that had been gassed, to mop up the badgers that their own social group had excluded.

A mass cull of badgers is emotive rubbish. It is not necessary, counterproductive, unachievable but designed to keep the people who propose it and oppose it, in the manner to which they've become accustomed. The beneficial crisis goes on, and as ever the losers are the badgers and the cattle.

"We can't cull any badgers - we have no staff".....

Staff from Defra's Wildlife Unit who have been on the sharp end of controlling badgers for many years, and in more recent times have been part of the Krebs team are under notice to quit.

Their knowledge and skills were somewhat underused in the RBCT. PQ's suggested that far from setting traps and catching tuberculous badgers for John Bourne they actually spent 5 hours per day - each - on the motorways - but let that pass.

Around 100 skilled men, with intimate knowledge of countryside, farms and woodland were under notice to quit from the end of March, and even up to last week their redundancy notices were not to be confirmed until the result of the current 'consultation' on badger culling was announced. This they felt was 'sensible'.

But we hear today that these excellent and skilled staff have been offered 'cash in lieu of notice'. Effective - any time soon. Next week?

Clearly Defra are sticking to the line of the 'consultation' that they will have absolutely nothing to do with controlling this Group 3 pathogen, which is in fact 100 per cent their responsibility and absolutely not, ' farmers'. But more to the point, why have Defra instigated a phoney 'consultation excercise' which was ever going to polarise entrenched opinions even more?

Wild statements are being issued from the RSPCA, Badger Trust and others, based on misleading information or downright lies. But all this was predictable. So why do it? Was it necessary at all? We do not think so. Both sides in this debate (and if honesty was to the fore, there should be only one side - the eradication of tuberculosis) have been manouvred and used. Farmers have been handed a poisoned chalice by Defra, "You sort it out" with the stick of tabular valuations and pre movement testing used to beat them. The carrot we suspect will be that Defra agree to pay for the latter. And the animal charities? Most of their web sites have a button every half an inch marked 'Donate'. And that they will do, straight into government coffers. We have the best administration money can buy.

Meanwhile the men who could oversee, spearhead and train up a co-ordinated control strategy, will be .... not there. We can just see the headlines "Defra has no staff to offer help in this".
Well they wouldn't have if they'd just been paid off, would they?

But none of this bitter polemic answers the question, "From where, when bought in cattle are excluded does this most infectious zoonsis come from?" The man in the moon? With 2 cows to go to slaughter, our SW 'Matthew' would like an answer.

'Fern' to join an increasing heap of dead cattle..

After a second test, Sheilagh Kremers' young Dexter calf Mous'l Fern proved positive for exposure to m.bovis and next week this bouncy young animal will take his final journey - to slaughter. Mrs. Kremers has reluctantly and very sadly agreed that Fern be slaughtered. She told the BBC that this test had been carried out in accordance with prescribed protocol, and that she had no choice but to let Fern go now. With any humanity, Mrs. Kremers will not have to witness the deed, as did our commentator Andrew from West Wales. (see comment below the story of a closed herd in the Principality)

Mrs. Kremers now faces the 'Russian roulette' of 60 day testing her other cattle - all eleven of them. All have names, all are 'cherished' and any one of them may meet the same fate as Fern.

But young Fern is is good company. One of this site's contributers, our SW 'mole' has had reactors this week and will lose two cows. It was back in 1999 that the last purchased animal joined his herd which is on at least annual testing. In fact a couple of times, 'problems' on neighbouring farms meant that our Matthew had to test every 6 months. So all clear for 7 years, and then two reactors. Where did that come from?

"Devastated and bloody Angry"

The words of a Welsh farmer who in 1973 bought 18 foundation cows to start his dairy herd.

Since then he has purchased - nothing. All his cattle are bred from those original cattle. But he is now experiencing the misery of a Tb breakdown, about which he can do absolutely nothing.
We know the feeling.

Full story: http://www.farmersguardian.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1597

Tb Sorted - Grow a Hedge.

"Hedges keep cattle away from badgers - which carry Tb."

Research costing £12,000 and (partially) completed - but not concluded - by Dr. Fiona Williams has discovered a correlation between hedges and the presence of bTb in cattle herds - maybe.

Sorted then? We are not informed whether hawthorn, hornbeam and beech or surburban box, privet or leylandii is the preferred barrier. Neither is it is explained just why a hedge, in whose bowels badgers may create their setts, should be a barrier at all to their foraging in its adjacent pastures.

The first rule of any research project is to fail to reach a substansive conclusion.
The second is to request more money to achieve this.
And the third is to disguise or deny the first two, and on that Dr. Fiona Williams has failed dismally. For more on this story see here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4783368.stm.