"The sight of a badger ...

.. now spreads fear in the countryside. So says a farmer, with her herd under TB restriction and losing cattle to zoonotic tuberculosis on her farm in Derbyshire.

An article by William Langley in the Sunday Telegraph explains that Angela Sargent, whose family have farmed the land since the 1930s, used to watch badgers play at dusk, describing them as 'magical'. But after losing her own cattle, and having the stress of imposed herd movement restrictions, that feeling is replaced by one of dread.

 The comments below this article are predictable, but Derbyshire Council, while quoted as being vehemently against culling badgers, appear to offer little alternative. This prompted a comment from one of our contributors which sums up the situation rather succinctly.

He points out that BCG is a very expensive and very ineffectual 'vaccine', especially when thrown at cage trapped, wild badgers, and that it will not prevent tuberculosis in any mammal. He suggests that unless there is an efficient, but targeted cull of the reservoir of bTB infection in the badger populations, the insidious five to ten mile annual spread of disease across the country will continue unabated.

The tested cattle are acting as the sentinels of a wider problem.This problem can now be 'targeted' very tightly:

"Using the polymerase chain reactor (PCR) technology the bTB infected setts can be identified. The dormant badgers are then fatally anaesthetised using Carbon dioxide generated from ‘dry ice’ as used for the production of artificial fog for recreational purposes.

After a few minutes the badgers would die peacefully in their slumbers. Pigs are routinely anaesthetised with Carbon dioxide, prior to stunning in slaughterhouses.

Carbon dioxide is itself an anaesthetic and being heavier than air would permeate all the chambers of the sett. A non-lethal dose would result in a full recovery within a few minutes."

Here is a link to the PCR test for badger setts, validated in three laboratories, located in two countries, which we described last year. Our contributor finishes his comment with this observation on the story:

"No reasonable, individual or group would be justified in objecting in principle to such a method of controlling the level of bTB infection in the badger populations."

Unfortunately 'reasonable' doesn't figure in badgerist's vocabulary.

We get the impression in their la la land that no badgers must be controlled. Not an infected badger, as this one with tuberculous pleurisy, emaciated beyond belief. Not any badger at all whether targeted for this evil zoonotic disease or not.

And that may be the case until such time as the chickens cats come home to roost  die, emaciated and coughing, on the family hearthrug.

EU funding opportunity.

Two stories have passed our radar this week which we have combined, as they offer a unique opportunity which may attract anyone applying for the gravy train opportunity of EU funding.

The first is a clip from the BBC website, explaining that as Wales is pretty cash strapped at the moment, farmers will be asked to fund or co-fund a country wide vaccination programme for badgers.

Now before most farmers dip through the straw, baler cord and nails to the bottom of their deep pockets, they should be asking two questions. The first is how much will this cost? And the second, what do I get for the cash? In other words does this work?

The Welsh Assembly Government has been indiscriminately jabbing badgers in Pembroke for well over a year now, and in April, we reported the cost of the exercise, at £662 per badger. Meanwhile incidence of cattle breakdowns had rocketed. Not that we would be reckless enough to add 2 and 2 and make anything out of that at all. But cage trapping genuinely wild badgers is substantially different from cage trapping the peanut fed pets living at Woodchester Park. And badgers 'infected' with zoonotic tuberculosis can easily become 'infectious' when stressed. That means shedding copious amounts of bacteria.

The cost of cage trapping is a fixed cost involving bureaucracy (licences), labour, man (or woman) hours, vehicles, cages and peanuts, while results (number of badgers caught) appears to be very variable. And as these animals have not had the benefit of a health check, their disease status is variable too.

The second story came in a message from a contributor, describing the efforts of "two nice girls" from London Zoo, who turned up in a shiny, brand new Land Rover, to cage trap wild badgers in SE Cornwall.

This project was to fit them with transmitter collars to see how they interact with dairy cattle. Why dairy cattle and not beef cattle, sheep or alpacas is not explained. And it would be churlish to point out that like so many other badgery 'research projects', this particular exercise has been bought and paid before.  But we'll do the link anyway, as we have no doubt that it will all be repeated again.

 The story :

"Two nice girls from London Zoo (who appear to have the contract to do this) duly turned up in a brand new Land Rover back in the spring and I helped put the traps out around our (expanding) badger sett. They came every day to put peanuts down with a view to catching some badgers after a few weeks when they had got used to the traps.

I saw one of the girls again a couple of days ago (they had been accessing the sett from our neighbour's land as he is the one with the dairy cows), and she told me that they had failed to catch a single badger from our sett, and in fact had given up trying. []

The badgers had apparently gobbled up the peanuts round the sett entrances but had proved to be completely trap-shy."

So putting these two stories together, we believe more than ever, that vaccination of wild badgers is an absolute no-no, even if the vaccine was fully licensed and its efficacy proven by post mortems, (which it is not) and even if the effect on cattle breakdowns was substantial, (which it won't be because up to half the badgers caught are already infected).  But mainly because many of these damned badgers won't go into Defra's cages.

So being of a cynical nature but with a good sense of humour, we see this as an ideal opportunity for the magnet of EU funding. Training genuinely wild badgers to enter Defra's cage traps. It could take a while... 

Nothing if not persistent

We are grateful to the South West  TB advisory group, for sight of a video clip, taken at Bicton college, of their attempts to exclude badgers from grazing areas. In this case a one acre paddock containing a couple of alpacas and now occupied by goats..


Below are stills from the clip, showing this persistent creature slotting himself sideways through the 4" gap  between the netted gate and the sunken mesh fence. First he tries the conventional way...










Nope, that's no good. I'll turn sideways and try again... That's more like it.


 Bingo! That's sorted their 'badger proof' fence. Yeah!!

Now, before anyone gets too excited about the concept of badger proofing their whole farm, the cost of the donated materials used by Bicton college for the one acre paddock constructed using free student labour is quoted on the McVeigh Parker website as '£209.30 + VAT for the wire which is buried underground, and £145.60 + VAT for above ground wire.' (50m rollls)

For a comparison on prices, conventional mesh sheep wire costs between £26 and £31 + VAT for 50m.
And with posts, strainers and labour, to back fence with this product, a 10 acre field will set you back between £8 - £10,000. Badger proof fencing multiplies that cost by at least 10 - and don't forget the gates.

The surface under the gate at Bicton, was concreted at 8cm to the bottom of the gate. That's 3 inches in old money. Because, as the video clip shows, if gaps are just 4 inches, badgers can get in, under or through.



 ** Please note that the link to the Defra website showing cases of zoonotic Tuberculosis in other species, referred to in SW TB Advisory service's piece, should be viewed with extreme caution scepticism.

For sure, scant mention is made in the notes accompanying these tables that Defra are counting their single confirming microbial sample only, and not total TB casualties. There is no indication there, that deaths of other mammals, including pets and companion mammals now number thousands, not the comforting handful shown as an excuse for ignoring the increasing spillover of this disease.

(Another) Consultation

Yesterday, (July 4th) Defra launched yet another TB consultation on the way forward out of a morass of their own making.
For the last at least three decades, they have paid homage to animal rights campaigners and their assorted travelers and offered one animal such protection as to make control of the disease which is endemic within it, untouchable.




We see from this map that 'zoning' is back, with current areas of endemic zoonotic tuberculosis found in tested cattle -  liable for more testing, and cattle moving between zones, post movement tested.
Also mentioned is a link to biosecurity for any top up reactor payments and the SFP (Single Farm Payment) compliance.

Farmers Guardian has the over view.


At a cursory glance these proposals look as if cattle farmers will pick up the tab for TB testing, receive cull value only for reactors and pay a levy to (possibly) increase that compulsory purchase price.

They will also either directly or indirectly, employ overlords to check their bio security, attracting fines if in the opinion of this assessor, they haven't sheeted gates, kept badgers out of buildings or purchased an animal from a 'red' zone farm which has subsequently become a reactor.

And they will also be expected to foot the not inconsiderable bill for Natural England to license and FERA to oversee a possible shooting party of local badgers. Maybe.

From Alistair Driver's report:
 "The other key theme underpinning the strategy is the development of an ‘enhanced partnership’ in TB control where farmers are encouraged to take more responsibility for disease controls and a landed with a greater share of the costs.

The strategy document, published on Thursday and based partly on the work of Defra’s Animal Health and Welfare Board for England, leans heavily on the experience of New Zealand, where control of bTB has been fully devolved to an industry-led body and the industry has co-financed the budget through levies and grants.

The strategy stresses that the current cost of TB control to taxpayers is ‘not sustainable’, highlighting a likely £20m shortfall in the estimated at £95m cost in 2014/15 and the funds allocated in the budget".

Leaving aside the observation that Defra's budget will now be spent on staff pensions and tuberculin antigen at 3p per jab, rather than any form of control of a Grade 3 pathogen, an international obligation to which this country has signed up, farmer 'co operation' is said to be vital. Particularly within this weaselly worded 'enhanced partnership'. So who's this 'we' Tonto?

After a long correspondence with the Animal Health board in New Zealand, TB Information, a brilliantly factual website explains:
 "In New Zealand, where a non-government agency known as the Animal Health Board manages their TB programme, it was found that when farmers were responsible for possum control the programme was not efficient and tended to leave holes where some farmers didn't undertake good control. In correspondence with New Zealand it is pretty obvious that you cannot leave gaps in control when you have an objective to reduce infected herd numbers or to eradicate TB from possums within a defined area of land."

"Such correspondence went on to say that if New Zealand's programme had been left to their government, then their TB programme would not have progressed to the extent it has, as politics and funding would have meant that the programme would have been conservative and have no accountability."

TB Information's editor continues:
"To me it sounds like the cull programme in England will be funded and deployed through collaboration between industry and government. Obviously circumstances in England are somewhat different to those in New Zealand but what England is planning to do, appears to be quite different from the current setup in New Zealand. In fact England's proposed strategy appears to more closely match the original strategy in New Zealand which was found to be lacking."

So Defra have looked at the New Zealand strategy, cherry picked parts (especially the cattle bits) but retain no overall control,  thrown wildlife management into the long grass and have little financial input other than fines?

 TB Information comments: "... in order to substantially reduce TB within the next 25 years, I think that one of two things needs to happen. Either the government commits and invests into addressing the badger problem. This does not appear to be happening at the moment."

( Other than the two proposed, unproven, highly controversial and high profile pilot culls, there is no back up Plan B in the current 'consultation' plan except a vague reference to PCR. And on past bitter experience of the opposition's last term of office, there does not appear to be any intention for any government to propose one in the foreseeable future - ed.) So what does that leave?

The second option (from TB Info) would be to give control of badgers back to farmers. But in order for this to happen, TB Information points out that UK legislation will need to be brought in line with the rest of the European Union.

This document has some useful snips, but in Great Britain, it would appear that meles meles is currently afforded more protection than is either desirable or healthy, both for the species itself, the slaughtered sentinel cattle, alpacas, sheep, pigs and goats or the increasing overspill of its lethal cargo, to domestic pets and humans.

The cynical amongst us will also observe a pattern here. In fact with the benefit of hindsight, one could say, shaft me once, shame on you. Shaft me twice, shame on me.

Alternatively, all cattle farmers could apply for charitable status - as 'Badger Sanctuaries'.

Groundhog Day?

Hard on the heels of yesterday's 'exclusives', the red tops have had a field day, with pictures of burgers and a rehash of how Defra are selling 'diseased cattle' into the food chain.

The regulations governing meat inspection go back to 1963, and are framed around looking for bovine zoonotic tuberculosis - so this is hardly 'new' or news worthy. Nevertheless, we will cut / paste from the Defra handbook exactly what happens to cattle that have reacted to the skin test.

All animals entering the food chain are inspected by a veterinarian before they are slaughtered. Before they can be stamped as fit to eat, officials of the Meat Hygiene Service (under veterinary supervision) will carry out a post-mortem health inspection.

TB reactors, IRs and DCs are clearly identified and slaughtered separately from other cattle. They are given a more detailed inspection, and diagnostic samples are usually collected.
If an animal is healthy before it is slaughtered, and no TB lesions are identified in post-mortem inspections, the carcase is considered fit to enter the food chain regardless of whether it came from a TB reactor, IR or DC. There are no barriers to trade in this meat within Great Britain or the European Union.

If TB lesions are found in one organ or one part of the carcase of reactors, IRs or DCs, that organ or that part of the carcase is removed and condemned. If the rest of the carcase is free from TB lesions, it is considered fit to enter the food chain.

In all other cases (that is, if more than one organ or more than one part of the carcass has lesions), the whole carcase and all the offal is condemned and destroyed.
If bTB is suspected during routine meat inspections of cattle that have not been slaughtered as reactors, IRs or DCs, Meat Hygiene Service inspectors decide whether to condemn the carcase on a case-by-case basis.

And that is how it has been for the last 50 years. Despite attempts by animal rights campaigners or vegan organisations to muddy the waters. Note the date on the last link, by the way.

This particular ball was set rolling by CWI (Care for the Wild International) but only the Grocer magazine gave them a mention. As a charity, this is possibly not what they intended from their recycling of this piece of old non-news.

 But we can see this one unrolling along with the following scenario:

"If Defra are comfortable selling 39,000 cattle (in GB) which have failed a TB test into the food chain and milk is pasteurised, why bother to test cattle and more to the point, why cull wildlife reservoirs of zoonotic TB at all?"

And the answer to that, leads us neatly back to pets, companion mammals and other victims, not normally associated with bovine zoonotic tuberculosis. So back to yesterday's cat story which apart from raising some very valid questions, drew an interesting comment about the consequences of zoonotic tuberculosis in domestic cats:

"I have had a cat with bovine tuberculosis , it was treated by the Bristol University veterinary department and at home for 2 years with human antibiotics ,there are not any cat ones, she was pronounced better but after another 18 months the disease came back.

It was the most horrendous experience. The family had to be medically checked for 2 years.

It is the most horrible disease for animals and humans and a sensible path has to be taken to eradicate. vaccination for farm animals and domestic pets and wild animals where appropriate. sentimentality wont cure the disease . So its not imagination its a real threat.

An that is precisely the point of International obligations to control zoonotic tuberculosis - wherever it is found.

 We'll finish with a howler of a grammatical fault, printed in its initial publication by the Mail online (and now belatedly but sadly, corrected.)

 

Some very large badgers, making hooooge holes in their ancestral homes then, or very, very small cows?

Zoonotic tuberculosis in the news

Very slowly, the dead tree media is catching up with bovine zoonotic tuberculosis's ability to affect the general public. The Telegraph reports research from Edinburgh which has identified more cats than was thought, have contacted the disease.

Veterinarians believe domestic cats could be catching the disease by venturing into badger setts or from rodents that have been in badger setts. They could also catch it directly from cattle or from infected milk. While the findings may raise fears that domestic pets are helping to spread TB among cattle, vets said the risk to human health was of greater concern.

There are some pretty sweeping assumptions there, but you get the gist.
Cats can catch what most people assume is a 'bovine' disease - but it may arrive on your hearthrug from animals other than bovines.
 That's the whole point of controlling any wildlife source of a zoonosis. Such diseases infect people. It's what they do, either directly or via another animal. In this case, the family cat.

There is a distinct under playing of concern in this article, which incidentally flies in the face of the comment from the Cheltenham Science Festival debate, which we reported in this posting.

Here a speaker from that debate reported that afterwards, a health worker in the audience explained that in her professional capacity, she was treating 8 people for zoonotic tuberculosis, which they had caught from their cats.

 The Telegraph's article quotes Professor Danielle Gunn-Moore, a researcher in feline medicine who has been studying the presence of TB in cats and who led the study, which is published in the journal of Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. She concludes:

“This study has revealed that the potential incidence of feline mycobacteriosis in Great Britain is higher than previously thought. These findings suggest that these infections are a common cause of clinical significant disease in cats in Great Britain and more work needs to further improve our understanding of these infections.”

Predictably, they never lose an opportunity to request  'more research' do they?

But the other thing to remember when looking at Defra's reported numbers for 'other species' including cats, is that they are for the single positive confirming sample only. And for any post mortem to be without cost, the veterinary practitioner must be a) treating the animal and must suspect zoonotic tuberculosis and b) report it to AHVLA as such. Otherwise, as well as a dead cat, the owner may face a bill for over £100 to tell him why it expired.
A hole in the garden may prove the cheaper option.

And just as Defra's Secretary of State, Owen Paterson MP heads for New York to promote trade talks and exports (particularly of specialist cheeses)  the dead tree media can be relied upon to hoover up some old news to put a spanner in the works.

For more than half a century,  cattle which have 'reacted' to the skin test have been compulsorily slaughtered. And once passed by a Meat Hygiene inspector, if they prove fit for human consumption, that is where they end up. We eat them.

Hiding behind a pay wall, the Sunday Times started the rush on this new old story, while many others followed word for word, with a tad more detail particularly of salvage value, in the Sunday Express. This tsunami of bad news left Defra  fighting a very short rearguard action,  with a response denying any risk to the public of them selling cattle which have reacted to the skin test into the food chain. Salvage value of cattle consigned last year is said by the Express to be over £9m.

All very convenient, don't you think?

Risk there may not be, but public perception and PR is pretty important and beef prices were enjoying somewhat of a renaissance after the unlabeled Shergar debacle. But for how long?

'Seal' of approval?

This post has been updated.


This weeks' media is full of the story of an injured seal pup washed up in Cornwall, which was subsequently found to have 'bovine' Zoonotic tuberculosis, now identified as a strain found in West Wales.

The report says that this is a unique occurrence, and that no seal has been found with bovine Zoonotic tuberculosis before. Not according to German molecular geneticists Brosch et al, who describe the progression of this bacterium through its DNA as 'developing over thousands of years and now firmly established in:

"... natural host spectra as diverse as humans in Africa, voles on the Orkney Isles(UK), seals in Argentina, goats in Spain, and badgers in the UK." [Brosch et al]

So it is well known that seals can be a wildlife host - but in Argentina. No mention of cattle there either - even for a bacterium with the tag of 'bovine'. Not one. And such geneticists (not celebrity rock stars who just lurve badgers) say that analysis of recent work suggests that true cattle TB was eliminated by the 1970s, and what we have now is badger adapted TB spreading back into the environment.

Which is pretty much what the current Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Boyd, said in his explanation of the genetic development of m. bovis which we reported in this posting.

So how did this seal pup arrive, injured, in Cornwall with a variety of bovine Zoonotic tuberculosis unique to Wales? Cows roaming the beaches of Wales? Nasty farmers infecting all and sundry with their illegally dumped cattle excretions? All and others have been suggested. What part of 'bovine' are you missing, is the usual snipe. And it's called 'bovine' tuberculosis because it 'only infects cattle', is the mantra believed by many dangerously misguided souls.

But many farmers and people who live in coastal areas have reported that badgers are regularly and increasingly seen on beaches, in sand dunes and near the high water line. So it not surprising at all to find a young pup, having sustained what is thought to be a bite wound from a badger, which in turn transmitted generalised tuberculosis.

What is irritating is the assumption that this story is propaganda put out by Defra to support a badger management strategy, but even more irritating shameful is the continued reference to those 'other species' statistics, peddled by Defra, which show the single (one) confirming microbial sample at the beginning of a disease outbreak.

As we've said many times since this came to our attention in 2010, this is deliberate manipulation of the spill over of a deadly zoonosis into other mammals, particularly pets and companion animals. It is inaccurate, recklessly dangerous, and it has to stop.

In late January, we thought a new broom had managed to count most of those 'other species' TB deaths and publish them. Particularly after media reports detailing over 400 alpacas, dead in a single outbreak of bovine zoonotic tuberculosis in June 2012. But no, Defra's table shows 35 alpaca samples for that year, which is what a gullible media hoover up and spit out.

Defra's new, improved tables proved just as inaccurate at adding 2 + 2 and when this was pointed out, they were removed for 'correction'. That was on January 28th 2013.
They too have 'disappeared'.

However, we look forward to seeing the addition of another line in the tables for this Cornish seal, with a Welsh spoligotype of bovine  Zoonotic tuberculosis - in due course. And when, finally those damn tables are accurately reflecting the number of deaths, not just single samples, they may get our 'seal' of approval.

Update:
Comments about this story led us to paper published in 1986, in which bovine zoonotic tuberculosis was identified in seals which had died at a marine park in Australia.  Subsequent spoligotyping made a link from them, with onwards transmission to their keeper at the time of their deaths.

 The Abstract of that paper suggests monitoring of keepers, and seal trainers.

In 1986, three seals died in a marine park in Western Australia; culture of postmortem tissue suggested infection with Mycobacterium bovis.

In 1988, a seal trainer who had been employed at the Western Australian marine park until 1985 developed pulmonary tuberculosis caused by M. bovis while working in a zoo 3,000 km away on the east coast of Australia.

Culture characteristics, biochemical behavior, sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, and restriction endonuclease analysis suggested that the strains of M. bovis infecting the seals and trainer were identical but unique and differed from reference strains and local cattle strains of M. bovis.

The infection in both the seals and the trainer had a destructive but indolent course.

This is the first time that M. bovis has been observed in seals and the first time that tuberculous infection has been documented to be transmitted from seals to humans. Further investigation of the extent of tuberculous infection in seal populations elsewhere in the world seems warranted, and those working with seals and other marine animals should be monitored for infection.

RSPCA - A Charity?

Going with that title, 'Charity' comes a responsibility not to pedal untruths, we would have thought.

 But this week the RSPCA have taken out adverts in the media, leading Farmers Guardian to report a spluttering by Defra minister, Richard Benyon branding the charity 'a disgrace'.

They say that they would rather Vaccinate?
 
This, even when a previous Defra minster (Jim Paice)has called the published claims for vaccination research 'misleading and unhelpful'?
And especially when Defra has instructed its henchmen not to support claims of efficacy for the data at all?
And even when no efficacy data was submitted to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, and thus the vaccination product only holds a Limited Marketing Authority license, meaning that in badgers pre screened for disease, 'it does no harm'?

 Neither would bottled water.

But it is the use of the 'E' word that is so misleading and emotive. When 110 such areas as the proposed pilot culls could be fitted into Wales and counties of the far South West, still leaving 25 percent of the land for towns, villages, roads and railways, can badgers be 'exterminated' from 70 percent of just two tiny patches?

And why have these two small pilot culls been approved by the Bern Convention, the very body which oversees the protection of badgers, if 'extermination' was going to be the result?

 The most obvious choice of redress is the Advertising Standards Authority where complaints can be made on line.

But the basis of this outrageous claim, which has a current Defra minister sooooo outraged, may also be of interest to another arm of government, the Charities Commission, who have a final say on membership of such a highly valued tax haven.

 Remember the word which the RSPCA used in their advertisements - 'Exterminate'. That is far beyond a 'disgrace'. It is a lie.

Ignorance is bliss

Recently, we took a leaf out America's handbook and rechristened 'bovine' tuberculosis  Zoonotic tuberculosis. This was because the Tweeters and Twitterers and some people who really should know better, appeared confused by the word 'bovine', assuming that this type of disease affected cattle - and only cattle.

But a raft of media reports this week, have described an outbreak of zoonotic tuberculosis in beef cattle grazing Greenham common in Berkshire.
Comfortingly, a spokesperson from Public Health England is reported to have said:

"the risk to humans is negligible as bovine TB is a different strain to the disease that can affect humans."

That statement appears in every report published, including (or especially) the BBC one, which many plagiarise. Leaving aside the grammatical niceties of that brief statement, it is mind blowingly, stupidly and dangerously inaccurate.
While still hooked up on the risk to humans from unpasteurised milk, this government agency does say in its blumph about Zoonotic tuberculosis:

It is not possible to clinically differentiate between TB caused by M. bovis and that caused by M. tuberculosis. The course and extent of the disease is the same, as is the treatment in most cases. Standard anti-tuberculosis therapy is effective against TB caused by M. bovis, however, the organism is inherently resistant to the drug pyrazinamide which is therefore omitted once M. bovis has been identified and its drug susceptibility is known.

In cases where there is extensive lymph involvement or damage or obstruction to other tissues, surgery is often indicated. Like M. tuberculosis, M. bovis too has the capacity to acquire drug resistance and ensuring that patients are able take a full course of treatment is similarly essential.

But this born again quango has yet to catch up with the burgeoning reservoir of a fatal zoonosis up spilling from wildlife, not into our tested, slaughtered cattle, but into domestic pets and companion mammals. And from them to their owners. As Phil Latham says in that article (link above):

"It is important to remember why bovine or zoonotic TB is controlled by international conventions – it is because humans can be infected and it beggars belief that infection levels have been allowed to increase both in cattle and wildlife for the last 15 years."

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to remind England's Public Health department of their International obligations and the effect of zoonotic tuberculosis on some of their patients. And quickly.

Not just for Zoonotic tuberculosis ...

... are badgers controlled in other member states within the European Union. Still operating under the Berne Convention, and with closed seasons as well as open, many other states, including the main axis of France and Germany exercise population control of badgers.

 We hear from contributors in Germany that the 'open' season for controlling badgers which may be causing damage to property, crops and livestock is by shooting and runs from August 1st to October 31st. each year. However, any hint of their involvement in the spread of bovine zoonotic tuberculosis and it's 'open' season all year round.



Meanwhile in France, terriers are used to dig out 'les blaireaux' prior to shooting. The control season in France is from May 15th - September 15th., and this is a rough translation of their methods:

"We practice this hunt from May 15 to September 15 in a regulated environment. We are available to persons who suffer damage caused by badgers and foxes.

We make every effort to ensure that the animal does not suffer. We are driven by a common passion for purebred dogs without which searching the tunnels would be impossible. We use Jack Russell terriers, or fox terriers for preference. Sometimes it takes several hours of work to get to the cavity where the badger earth. We stir cubic meters of earth.

Dogs do the work of locating and we'll dig the wells, several meters below, can capture one or more badgers. New member of the Terriers Mount Sacon, Yves discovered this activity: "I hunt for forty years in the plains and I discovered this practice. Without the crew and their dog handlers, it would be impossible to locate badgers. And the worst is yet to do, we dig into all types of terrain. A titanic work, "says the latter.

By a 'regulated environment', they mean at the request of the landowner and with permission of the local 'prefecture' and his superiors. This report came from Sost and Mauleon, about 40 miles south of Toulouse.

Another area which has reported problems and called in 'la chasse' is Doullens, an area between Calais and Amiens.They describe:

Five crews digging up, or Hunting underground had an appointment at 8 am at 30 Daniel Garenne, President of ICG. Their area was mainly located around Doullens.
"Badgers, the number of which in recent times has significant growth pose major problems for hunters and especially farmers, causing damage to crops , "says Daniel Vahé, agent of the Federation of hunters.

Badger is an omnivorous mammal, depending on the season, feeding beet or corn stalks layer to access the ears.
Moreover, as it is also a great digger, he created with its burrows a risk of machine breakdowns by their collapse. The Hunts underground, including the unearthing of badgers is an activity ensuring the regulation of species, adds Daniel Vahe.

These are some of the five crews, together with their terriers, ready for work on May 15th.

And finally, from Limoges, where land owners and the Hunt want a longer season to control badgers and other animals which destroy crops and livestock. This translation is from the annual hunt report.

"The list of work is long: twenty hunting for foxes is unlikely to beat the deer they have let slip through the tall grass, a handful of hunters is to man'uvre to retype the local hunting Bussiere Magdalene, made available by the municipality.

Coypu and forty two badgers day control, three hunters for a badger in a hamlet at the request of an owner, and all the seasons, many villages déterrages , Roux at The Age, The Age of the Curé ... not to mention a survey in a field of corn destroyed at the request of an expert.

But the service does not stop there: hunters have a sacred patience as availability. They are named (called) for the loss of livestock in the field or around the farm when the diagnosis is difficult, local officers may have the backing of the National Guard as was the case in April 2012, in Bussière-Madeleine,
"I was called to a birth devoured by a beast; a calf eaten by - fox, badger, boar or stray dog - explains Jacky Rigaud, the center of the Creuse was contacted and the National Guard came to see, took pictures, have concluded badgers and invited to monitoring, as the opening of this species date is 1st May. "

 The translation is not great, but we get the picture. Badgers are controlled by the hunt (la chasse) whose activities are overseen by the prefecture and other bodies. This ensures the survival of species, but controls outbreaks of damage to property, crops and livestock.

So in Germany and France, badger control is not just for Christmas Zoonotic tuberculosis. Other countries still manage to operate population management when numbers cause problems.

And in the UK, we give that sort of licensing to an organisation which is quite open in its contempt for controlling any badger at any time for any reason.

Snipping the truth.

We have pointed out many times, this brazen and deliberate misquoting editing both of scientific papers and television programmes when it comes to badgers, or indeed the disease which they carry, Zoonotic tuberculosis.

In this week's Telegraph, countryman and writer Robin Page,  having spoken to contributors to a recent BBC 'show', wrote an extensive piece showing just how much celluloid attracts the BBC's editorial scissors, and what a biased view this can give.

He points out that a recent Countryfile programme show was edited to explain that the decline of hedgehogs was due to habitat depletion or passing Reliant Robins. There was no mention of predation by badgers. After contacting a main contributor to the programme, who confirmed that she mentioned the badger point several times, Robin Page concludes:

In my view, this is highly selective editing. I will leave it up to readers – is the badger omission simply a matter of “editorial discretion” or is it the Disneyfication of nature? [snip] In my view it is not objectivity; it seems to be little short of animal-rights propaganda. What is the BBC hierarchy going to do about this unacceptable situation?

We would guess, precisely nothing. A coughing badger is a very valuable asset to many, including or especially,  the British Broadcasting Corporation.

In another snippet from Robin's excellent and informative piece, he describes the arrival of 'bovine' zoonotic tuberculosis into a dairy herd in Dorset which has been 'closed' to cattle movement for decades.

Cattle on a closed dairy farm in Dorset – “closed” meaning that no cattle have moved on to the farm (it has been closed for 99 years) – have suddenly got TB. Since autumn, more than a third of the herd has been slaughtered. And the strain of TB? A virulent form usually found in Exmoor.

This almost certainly means that animal rights campaigners are trapping badgers in the Somerset cull area (illegal) and releasing them in Dorset (illegal) with no concern for the consequences. This also means that healthy Dorset badgers will get TB. It is an act of stupidity and cruelty, as bad as when those misguided hooligans released mink from mink farms into the general countryside several years ago.

We too have described the utter stupidity of allowing businesses to make a living out of translocating badgers 'rescued' from other areas. The risk of disease transmission both to other badgers or any mammal is huge.

But it appears that  the 'asset' value of a badger outstrips common sense. And thus far this loophole has not been closed; which is pretty damned insulting to those of us with cattle under restriction.

Where did it all go wrong...... ?

Having spent the last decade collating and collecting snippets about the non-control of Bovine Zoonotic tuberculosis  in Great Britain and posting them on this site, we thought a potted history may bring our readers up to date. There are many statements flying around which are just fairy stories, and in the next few paragraphs, we will attempt to blow a few myths away.

 During the 1950s and 60s, what was known as the 'Compulsory Eradication ' process swept through the cattle herds of the country, starting at the coasts and working inwards towards the midlands. Testing cattle, and slaughtering those which reacted to the skin test was very successful leaving only a few red dots on the ministry's maps to spoil a complete clearance.

The Badgerists will claim that this clearance this was carried out without a hair of a badger's head being harmed. But that is not true. Farmers were controlling numbers right up until The Badgers Act (1973) made this illegal, hoovered up with action against the obscene 'sport' of badger baiting. Populations were 'managed' and kept stable before and during the eradication process, until 1973.
And TB incidence fell from an estimated 40 per cent of cattle affected in the 1930s to 0.04 per cent at the end of the Compulsory Eradication process.

It was around this time that an infected badger was found on a farm in Gloucestershire. The farm was was having persistent problems getting the herd clear with testing and slaughter of its cattle. It was also noted that in West Cornwall, cattle herds went clear during winter housing, only to go under restriction again after grazing open pastures.

We explored the resulting cattle carnage in this posting, with the aid of the CVO reports from 1972 - 1976.

During the 1970s, badgers were routinely euthanased by the Ministry's wildlife teams, while underground in their social groups, if cattle breakdowns failed to clear with cattle testing and slaughter. And the incidence of Zoonotic tuberculosis dropped to a level which would have allowed TB free trading under the OIE regulations.



That level is set at less than 0.01 per cent of herds affected, and 0.02 per cent of cattle slaughtered in a three year period of surveillance by skin testing and slaughter. Remember that figure: it is important.

 This was the parish map in 1986, showing a handful of breakdowns in  a few clusters. Any population control by landowners, had been banned in 1973.

But in the early 1980s, puppet 'scientists', singing political tunes for their suppers research grants and pensions, came to the fore and veterinary experience and expertise took a back seat.






One of the first reports to cause problems,  was by Lord Zuckerman which concluded that underground euthanasia was fine for rabbits, foxes and moles - but cruel to badgers.


 And although he accepted that badgers were involved in the cycle of 'bovine' tuberculosis, he was going to make it damn difficult for MAFF to control the disease in them. Thus in 1982, gassing was replaced by cage trapping and shooting in a 'ring' of around 7km from the breakdown or until badgers postmortemed 'clean'.. Incidence bumped along at a fairly low rate, with 605 cattle slaughtered in 1982 and 843 in 1985.

 But an even more damaging tweak came in 1987, with the Dunnett report. Another 'scientist' who concluded that badgers played a significant role, but then proceeded to emasculate the Ministry's ability to control Zoonotic tuberculosis in them even more.

 Professor Dunnett's report introduced the 'Interim strategy' which ran from 1987 - 97, while politicians decided what to do about increasing numbers of reactor cattle and wrung their collective hands with the Badgerists. And the reason for this increase?

After Dunnett, the amount of land available to the Ministry of Agriculture's State Veterinary Service to trap on, was cut from 7 km to just 1 km. And then only on land which cattle had grazed. Thus if the badger's ancestral home was in forestry, an arable field or 2km from base, it was off limits. Untouchable.

And cattle slaughtering climbed from 782 in 1986 to 3,760 in 1996 - the last year of any semblance of control by the Ministry at all. A potted chronology can be seen on this link.

But the real nail in the coffin came in 1997, with a £1 million bung from the Political Animal Lobby (PAL) and not a little influence from a diminutive Professor, leading the anything but Independent, and arguable most un-Scientific Group of all - the ISG. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial  Badger dispersal trial started in 1997 and no badgers were culled outside its triplet zones. As the RBCT wildlife teams stirred up infected populations occasionally for 8 nights, with time out for FMD, cattle reactors went through the roof.

Those of us unfortunate enough to experience these areas of carnage, were not surprised to see the initial rubbish results but we were surprised at the brazen opportunism, which drove this charade.





Professor Bourne did not say 'culling badgers' would have no place in controlling zoonotic Tuberculsosis in cattle in this country. What he said to the EFRA committee in 2007, we quote again below. Read it and weep.

"We repeatedly say "culling, as conducted in the trial." It is important [that] we do say that. Those limitations were not imposed by ourselves. They were imposed by politicians."

Bought and paid for then?

 This is the map of GB's testing  in 2013, with around 40,000 cattle culled annually, over 10 per cent of GB's cattle herds under restriction compared with the OIE's TB free trading level which is set at  0.01 per cent.

And we now have the inevitable spillover of Zoonotic tuberculosis into many other mammals including domestic pets, companion animals and their owners.





This non-eradication policy for zoonotic tuberculosis went so very wrong over the last three decades for two very simple reasons. We have the best administration that lobby money can buy, and a raft of political scientists willing to sell their souls for an index linked pension.

Taking it seriously.

"Exposure to M. bovis can be a serious health hazard." So said an executive from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), after slapping AHVLA on the wrist, censuring AHVLA for breaches in handling live samples of m.bovis, the causative agent of Zoonotic tuberculosis, over a period of two years.

"The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) completed a Crown censure procedure against the Weybridge-based organisation following an investigation into the handling of samples containing Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis) - the causative agent of bovine TB, which in some circumstances can be harmful to humans."

Given the seriousness of the disease known as 'tuberculosis', a group term which includes Zoonotic tuberculosis (bovine TB) that's a bit of an understatement, but let that pass.
Farmers Weekly, reported last month an HSE investigation into the handling of live samples for further testing collected at Starcross, Exeter and submitted to Weybridge AHVLA. Their findings included:

* Standard operating procedures were not fit for purpose - they lacked clarity and detail, and did not take proper account of the equipment at Starcross used to inactivate M. bovis, or the experience of personnel at that laboratory.

* The wrong equipment was provided - the equipment provided to the staff at Starcross for the M. bovis inactivation procedure was not the right equipment for the task

. * Training for Starcross technicians was inadequate - personnel undertaking the M. bovis inactivation procedure received no formal training on the process.

* Effectiveness of the inactivation process was not monitored - personnel at Starcross did not routinely check that the inactivation process was working and that the M. bovis samples were safe to handle.

* Managers failed to resolve issues - some operators at Starcross raised concerns about the inactivation process and equipment, but no action was taken.

If a private company or individual had acted in a such a reckless matter during the handling of a Grade 3 zoonotic pathogen, prosecution would be inevitable. However, the report explains:

Crown bodies such as AHVLA, an executive agency of DEFRA, must comply with the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act. However, they are excluded from the provisions for statutory enforcement, including prosecution and penalties.

The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) made provision under Section 10(2)(a) for 'culling to prevent the spread of disease'. The 'disease' carried by these animals, being the very same Zoonotic tuberculosis for which HSE have censured AHVLA so heavily in respect of their employees.

 In his raft of Parliamentary Questions lobbied in 2004, Owen Paterson asked "What was the current policy on the issuing of licenses under this section of the Act, and how many the Secretary of State (then Madame Beckett) expected to issue in the next 5 years. [158605]

The answer given on 18th March 2004, Col 431W was;

Under section 10 (2) (a) - to prevent the spread of disease: "It is current policy not to issue any licenses under sub section 10 (2) (a) to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis, except for animals held in captivity."

And since that moratorium on Section 10(2)a) (purchased in 1997 with PAL lobby cash) we have culled no badgers 'to prevent the spread of disease' , except a very few in the RBCT, the operating protocol of which ensured not the control of Zoonotic tuberculosis, but its spread.

 However to the end of 2012, AHVLA have slaughtered 354,084 cattle. They have also been responsible for the slaughter of several thousand 'other species' TB victims, in their quest to eradicate TB from everything else - except badgers. Species affected include alpacas, llamas, bison, pigs, goats, deer and sheep.
Transmission of Zoonotic tuberculosis from these animals, particularly domestic pets and companion animals to their owners, has already been recorded.

How culpable does that make Defra / AHVLA?

Incarcerated ... but safe.

There have been many opinions published when dairy farmers consider keeping cattle inside 24/7.

"But they're grazing animals" tweet the Twits. "They must be free  and in the open air. It's not natural to keep them inside all the time."
But what happens when the badgers which have caused the annihilation of one herd, still have the Right to Roam to reinfect the replacements?

In March, we told the story of one such herd, which AHVLA 'depopulated' - which is a fancy word for slaughtered the lot - after a devastating routine test at the end of January. The habitat of the badgers living next to this farm, had been turned into football pitches, hotels and a leisure facilities, thus displacing their food supply. The result appeared to be a doubling of numbers and territorial scrapping on a huge scale for this dairy herd. This combined with very little UV light last summer, and floods.

There wasn't a field on this farm  without contamination by badger faeces - and it was not in latrines. The cows paid the ultimate price.

Gillian Bothwell has now posted an update to her story, on British Farmers Forum.. In her own words:

You may recall that we lost our entire milking herd in February due to a TB breakdown, thought I'd just update where we are up to now: When the last of the cows had left the farm we got stuck into cleansing and disinfecting, what a soul destroying job that is!! All you can think about is the cows that have gone, I never realised just how difficult a cubicle shed is to completely clean to the standard required, hubby took a week out to visit his family in NI as it hit him very hard.

We then badger proofed the sheds and the maize/wholecrop clamps (feed store in an enclosed shed so that was OK) had two inspections by AHLVA before a license finally granted to buy in some cows. Many tears shed during all of this I can tell you!!

Before restocking, AHVLA had put some very stringent conditions on this farm. None included badgers, but all was geared to keeping them away from the dairy cattle. Gillian continues:

Anyway, we had stipulations as to buying in cows - they had to come from farms with a clear TB history so it was going to be pretty difficult finding large numbers here that we could afford. Eventually we spoke to BACA and went to Germany and selected 130 cows and heifers in total on three trips.

Very interesting trips: the farmers over there have very little knowledge of TB and seemed amazed at our situation with regard to us having to slaughter all our cows whilst the badgers run free.

We're amazed at the situation in this country too - but let that pass.

Gillian tells us that the cattle travelled beautifully and have settled in well - "it just takes a little while and some TLC to get them used to new surroundings, new diet and my husbands strong Irish accent!!!"
 The youngstock and calves from the original herd had been grazing well away from the new sports complex and they have once again tested clear.

But what of these new dairy cattle in their hermetically sealed, AHVLA approved, badger proofed box unit?:

We have made the decision to keep the cows inside this summer where they are safe due to the badger proofing, obviously it will cost us more to feed them but we feel to nervous to turn them out. All in all its been completely hellish and I wouldn't want it to happen to anyone, as well as the heartbreak of losing the cows the cost of it all has been massive.

If you take it all in - loss of 4/5 month's milk sales from 140 cows going through the parlour, cost of buying replacements (compensation doesn't cover it) all the work done to the sheds and clamps, cost of feeding calves that we have not been able to sell due to movement restrictions, cost of spring work with no income, I reckon we are well into six figures.

How is a small family dairy farm supposed to stand a hit like that??

So this farm has " milk going out of the yard again," and in July should see a milk cheque. And the Bothwells say that they are " grateful for good friends for their help, suppliers who are working with us and our AHVLA vet has been very supportive and lastly our three little boys who have kept us going through it all. We just have to keep going and hope we can survive it ."

 But those cattle now stay inside because the badgers are still roaming free to infect - again? And as Gillian has said "we can't go through this a second time." One comment on the BFF post asks: "

"So AHVLA have made you expend time, energy and cash before they have allowed you to restock. Have they spent the same in identifying the source of the infection and eliminating it?

If not why not?"

Good question. A case for screening those badgers? Or have the Bothwell's dairy cows got to stay cooped up for the rest of their lives, just to avoid being infected with Zoonotic Tuberculosis by an animal, deemed by some, to be worth more than a cow?

Not cattle ....

Following the lead of the United States' Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and as described in other papers from Africa we shall in future, refer the 'bovine' TB, as Zoonotic tuberculosis.

 The word 'bovine' seems to confuse. And for sure, Team Badger appear to want to confine this debate to cattle versus wildlife. This stance does not take in the wider implications of allowing a deadly zoonosis, with an indefinite incubation period, free rein the British countryside, thus enjoying an inevitable interface with other mammals.

This was bought home quite forcefully during a debate at the Cheltenham Science Festival this week, when a motion to cull manage badgers was discussed and decisively won. The speakers for such management were Roger Blowey, a published veterinary surgeon, and dairy farmer, Phil Latham. Opposing any sort of management - except vaccination - were another vet and the fragrant, badger homing owner of Secret world, Mrs. Pauline Kidner.





But in questions or points from the floor, one speaker announced that in her professional capacity and at the present time, she was treating 8 people in the county of Gloucestershire for Zoonotic tuberculosis - which they had contracted during an up close and personal relationship with the family cat.

 And that dear readers is how distorted this debate has become: cattle v. badgers. Either one or the other, and not parallel action on managing Zoonotic Tuberculosis in both.



The result is many hundreds of dead animals, some companion mammals to human beings. Cats are as much victims of Zoonotic tuberculosis as our tested sentinel cattle, and their owners face an unenviable period of intensive drug therapy, to try and control this evil disease.  The outcome of which is by no means a certainty.

The debate.

Yesterday, a smattering of MPs made the effort to put the case for the management of an acknowledged and proven wildlife source of zoonotic tuberculosis in England, during a 3 hour debate in the House of Commons.

 After spending a productive afternoon taking a metaphorical strimmer to a collection of overgrown weeds (which could have been childish and destructive Members of Parliament) I found the debate very bland. Lacking in much passion at all - except for badgers and their associated political science.

Opposing the motion for the government, Secretary of State, Owen Paterson MP, made his point forcefully.

Concentrating on the fact that although we are not the only country to have zoonotic tuberculosis (M. bovis) established in wild mammals, when this disease feeds up into sentinel tested cattle, we are alone in the developed world in ignoring it.

The results of that one sided policy, is that in Great Britain, our statistics for control of this grade 3 pathogen are the worst in the developed world, putting trade at some risk. But human health at considerable risk.

Owen mentioned his visit to Australia, and compared our efforts at eradicating reactor cattle, sheep and alpacas with that of the Republic of Ireland, and New Zealand, who take a wider view of the problem this bacterium causes. He also touched on emerging problems in countries within the European Union, which we have begun to trace recently
.
 Although some honourable Members failed to see this relevance of a combined action on mycobacterium bovis, preferring the far easier target of England's cattle, of note are NI's Jim Shannon and Sheryll Murray (SE Cornwall) who put their points well.

But possibly the most succinct speech came late in the day from Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnor) who observed:

One thing that we are certain about is that badgers infected with TB can pass it on to cattle, but there are other methods of infection. When there are diseased badgers in fields where cattle are grazing, there is the opportunity for the disease to be transmitted. Although we are cleaning up the disease in cattle, as long as there are infected badgers where they are grazing, the disease can spread. We have heard a lot about increased biosecurity, but the same people advocate natural forms of cattle production—in other words, grazing. As far as I know, there are no biosecurity measures that can keep badgers and cattle apart when cattle are grazing.

Predictably, the destructive base of modern, modelled 'political' science, links to which can be found in this posting was ignored. The motion was defeated by a substantial margin.

But why in the 21st century we should be having a debate at all, about control of a Grade 3 zoonotic pathogen, could have been the subject for this debate. The consequences for our MP's continuing political protection of M. bovis have already proved deadly and profound.

Zoonotic TB: the bigger picture

A minor but nonetheless important parliamentary event took place yesterday, with the opposition day debate on the badger cull, against the motion that, "this House believes the badger cull should not go ahead".

Fronted by Mary Creagh, Labour MP for Wakefield and shadow secretary of state of the environment, she opened with the question: "is culling badgers the most effective way to stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis?" 

This is the classic straw man ploy, setting up a false premise in order to knock it down. No one with any sense will actually argue that a cull will stop the spread of what I prefer to call zoonotic TB – the bacterial strain has long adapted to multiple hosts and can no longer be considered a bovine pathogen. 

To any sensible person, the cull is simply one tool in a complex "toolbox" of measures available to control the disease, which in the UK is largely out of control, spreading geographically and affecting increasing numbers of animals. 

Thus, it would have been far more appropriate to address the issue of whether, in the context of the disease having established itself in the wild fauna, zoonotic TB in domestic cattle had ever been successfully eliminated without first dealing with the wildlife reservoir. 

And it is here, as in many other things, we can benefit from taking a broader view of the situation, looking beyond our borders, and seeing what is happing elsewhere. And, if we do, we find that the UK is by no means alone in suffering from the upsurge in zoonotic TB. 

For instance, in the Bieszczady region in the southeast of Poland, not far from the Ukraine border, there has been a major outbreak in wild bison (below). 

Significantly, the local veterinary authorities carried out investigations of other wild animals and, in mid-April discovered infection in wild boars – to which badgers are closely related. As recently as May, tuberculosis had been confirmed in three pigs that had died in the Bieszczady forest, in the same area where previously tuberculosis had been found in bison. 

This broader view, therefore, underlines the relationship between the disease in ruminants and other fauna, a relationship so well established in veterinary circles that, when Mexico domestic cattle were found to be infected with zoonotic TB, the authorities immediately undertook surveillance of wild ruminants in what was called the "wildlife-livestock interface". White-tailed deer, North American elk and red deer were “harvested” via controlled hunting. 

The relevance of the "wildlife-livestock interface" is further emphasised by official Italian veterinary advice, which lists the different "risk factors" in production systems, including as a major factor in the spread of TB, "poor surveillance systems and control of bovine tuberculosis in wildlife". 

Thus, in a major outbreak of zoonotic TB in cattle in Sovona in 2007 – a region which was a long history of TB outbreaks, much emphasis was placed on controlling the wild boar population, which were implicated in the spread of the disease. Wildlife management was thought essential before there could be a return to what was termed "normal care". 

In Spain, it has long been recognised that high densities of wildlife, mainly Eurasian wild boar and red deer have been able to maintain M. bovis in circulation, even in the absence of domestic livestock, this forming what is technically known as a self-sustaining “maintenance” reservoir. 

In 2008, a ground-breaking study of Spain's Doñana National Park proved unequivocally the link between infection in the domestic cattle, using genotyping to demonstrate the epidemiological relationship. European wild boar, red deer and the fallow deer were examined for the presence of zoonotic TB. The infection was confirmed in 52 percent of wild boar, 27 percent of red deer and 18 percent of fallow deer. 

The results obtained confirmed that wildlife species were infected with the M. bovis strains which are more prevalent in cattle, with the official report concluding that introduction of domestic animals into wildlife areas when there no guarantee of freedom of disease and without appropriate diagnostic techniques and control measures represented a risk to cattle health. Researchers suggested that identifying and culling animals with advanced bovine TB could reduce the number of super-shedders and the availability of contagious carrion. 

This builds on the work from the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), which reports that 22 percent of countries with TB infection have detected bovine tuberculosis in wildlife (deer, elk, wild boar, feral goat, buffalo, possum, ferret, mink, hedgehog, lion, cheetah, kudu, baboon, and seal) in the last 10 years. Where wild species become "maintenance host" for M. bovis, they can be responsible for continuing outbreaks even when infection is eliminated from domestic cattle. 

The best-known examples of this dynamic are cited by the OIE as the European badger (Meles meles) in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand, the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Michigan, which has served as the presumptive source of infection for cattle herds and carnivores, and the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in Africa, which has spread the infection to predators. 

Thus, when a very recent TB outbreak was observed in Bavarian cattle, investigation of deer and roe deer in the Upper Allgäu were carried out and infection of the same type was found, with a prevalence of 18.2 percent. As a result, 1,614 red deer have been shot by the deer hunting community. Similarly, recent outbreak in Swiss cattle, in the Cantons of Fribourg, Vaud and Valais – the first cases for 50 years – deer have been examined for potential infection. 

A reminder of the zoonotic character of the disease, incidentally, comes from the latest outbreak in Germany where, on a farm in the district of Rotenburg, a farmer has succumbed to the disease. In this country, the owner of a flock of alpacas which was found to be infected, is currently being treated for a serious case of the infection, and may need an operation to remove one of her lungs. 

There has also been a recent outbreak of zoonotic TB in Belgium, which has been free from the disease since 2003 – the disease having been discovered in a slaughterhouse in Holland. Investigations are currently being carried out, but it is significant that the affected cattle are from a beef herd which does not have contact with other cattle. 

From the UK's perspective, some of the more significant outbreaks have been in France, where the increase is regarded as "worrying" by the authorities. There, we note, in some prefectures, badgers have been associated with the spread of disease and the Ministry of Agriculture is seeking destruction of badger setts when they are classified as harmful. 

In France, currently, a policy of whole-herd slaughter is practised, but there is also no reticence about culling wildlife. In February 2012, M. bovis infection was detected in wild boar in a game park in Marne department, previously a bovine tuberculosis-free area. In order to prevent spillover, all the game present in the park was slaughtered, including 280 wild boars, where the prevalence of infection was determined at 7.3 percent. 

At the end of May this year, after three cases of bovine tuberculosis were diagnosed in less than a year in herds Semide, Contreuve and Sugny, resulting in the slaughter of about 200 cattle, two badgers carrying bovine tuberculosis were found, close to the areas where the cattle infection had occurred.

 The local hunts were involved (pictured above) by the prefecture in the Ardennes, through the formal system of "lieutenants de louveterie" and in the first days of this month, systematic trapping and analysis of badgers was conducted, with 60 badgers taken. Four have been found to be infected.

Control measures are ongoing, and one notes that while the media here lauds a former pop-star guitarist, who believes M. bovis to be a virus rather than a bacterium, Pascal Mailhos, prefect of Burgundy and Côte-d'Or, recently awarded medals to officials actually dealing with TB in the front line, including Jean-Luc Loizon, the local Lieutenant louveterie. This is an interesting reflection of relative national priorities. 

But, as he went into bat for the government's plans, no one was more conscious of this "bigger picture" than Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson. One of the most eurosceptic ministers in the Cabinet, he regularly outflanks his own officials at EU council meetings by being able to speak with his French and German counterparts, whose languages he speaks fluently.

And thus, while Mary Creagh flounders around as the perpetual "little Englander", Paterson is in touch with the European and global scene, using data from all over the world to strengthen the case for dealing with the wildlife reservoir over here.

Fortunately, the "bigger picture" prevailed and the motion was defeated by a handsome majority. Owen Paterson lives to fight another day.

Vive la France!

We mentioned in this posting the emergence of bovine zoonotic tuberculosis in the Ardennes region of France. More is emerging on the response of the French authorities to this threat. If you remember, they had already confirmed disease in two badgers, and were about to trap and examine a further 80. They don't hang about in France.

The deed is done, with more infected badgers found. Here is a quick auto-translation from the first link:

Attention only animals collected on risk areas and therefore the corresponding analyzes are supported financially by the state, through this monitoring on national wildlife called 'SYYLVATUB.'

To date, 24 badgers have already been taken, mainly in the sector and Semide Contreuve. Early results showed five negative cases, but a badger gave a positive result (the latter was trapped in the town of Mont-Saint Martin - our edition of May 18)

The discovery of this infected with bovine TB badger, has the effect of changing the main device, which now calls for:

• the continued trapping and systematic analysis of a sample of 60 Badgers (4 x 15 badgers) around four homes cattle in 2012 and 2013;

• trapping intensified and systematic analysis of badgers captured in a one-kilometer radius around the infected badger burrow;

• trapping and systematic analysis of a sample of 15-20 badgers in the periphery (one to two kilometers) of the aforementioned area.

A hunter is concerned at the large number of badgers to take, but do not balk at the task.

And another auto-translate from the second link:

"We conducted analyzes of sixty badgers trapped around the four foci of tuberculosis identified. We have twenty returns including analysis was positive. "The regulatory framework indicates that at least one infected for the department going in the red zone animal," says Pierre N'Gahane, the prefect of the Ardennes.

Evaluation of the rate of infection:

* As a precautionary measure to monitor more regularly wildlife, the representative of the State has already asked the Directorate General of Food Ministry in charge of Agriculture (EB) transition in level 3 Sylvatub the plane.

* A meeting of the monitoring unit will be held Tuesday, June 4 to discuss the evolution of the health situation in the department and the implementation of measures already experienced in the Marne and the two French departments most affected by this disease, Côte-d'Or and the Dordogne

 In France, la chasse (the hunt) are seconded to collect suspect blaireaux (badgers) and deliver to the appropriate authorities for sampling.

This article explains and they kindly send us pics as well. They don't hang about in France, do they?

 It's good to see that at least someone takes zoonotic tuberculosis seriously.