Don't use the 'G' word

News this week that SUE is to be trialled on badger setts. Defra just lurve their acronyms and the 'G' word (gassing) may have unfortunate connotations for more sensitive souls. Or those who have yet to experience of consigning home bred,  heavily pregnant cattle to premature slaughter.

So, an acronym is needed. Will Selective Underground Euthanasia or SUE  do? And if not, we're sure that our more inventive readers (or Defra's zTB team) can suggest more.

But that really depends on how committed the latter are to solving this mess without embroiling our cattle, sheep, pigs, deer and alpacas  in yet more obfuscation. (link) 
Or consigning our cattle industry  to the longest suicide note (link) in history; a process which is likely to involve all products from so-called vaccinated animals as well as the beasts themselves.  But we digress...

The product previously used for underground culls, hydrogen cyanide, and its more modern cousins are still in use for control of all subterranean mammals - except badgers. But newer and less evil substances are available, including Carbon Dioxide - used most widely as 'reacreational fog' at pop concerts. Which 'may' explain quite a lot....

Most importantly, in a sub-lethal dose, any product used must not maim.

Carbon dioxide is used widely in the selective euthanasia of pigs and chickens, death being instantaneous and carcase damage nil. Less refined anaesthetics are also a possibility.

So a new product has to be found. Why? Because taking pot shots or even indiscriminate, high profile cage trapping of just a few members of an endemically infected, subterranean, nocturnal, group mammal is just plain crackers. It ignores all we know about effects of splitting social groupings of badgers, the transmission and survival of the bacteria which causes zoonotic Tuberculosis within a badger sett and is hugely expensive to operate. It is also indiscriminate as to its targets. Some will be infected, but others not so.
And those presently uninfected groups need to be left completely alone.

The Times has a snippet about new trials to assess products which may be suitable (link) but the full article is hidden behind a pay wall, so just the introduction can be produced here:

Farmers could be allowed to gas diseased badgers in their setts, following research into alternatives to the shooting being used in the present culls.

The gassing of badgers using cyanide was banned 30 years ago because it was considered inhumane, but many farmers believe carbon monoxide poisoning would be a painless way of killing animals in setts that have been infected with tuberculosis.

Never missing a journalistic opportunity, the illustration and strapline in this article show a shiny group of badgers and refers to the 'gassing of badger families'. But then they would not like to show the reality of zTuberculosis in badgers, would they?

Pictures like this may upset people.  But here he is folks: emaciated, excluded, alone and now dead. But not before sharing his lethal burden with any mammal unfortunate enough to have crossed his highly infected, bacterial footprint path. And leaving it, in some circumstances for weeks if not months.

 More information that the removal of infected groups of badgers (as opposed to picking off one or two individuals) has on the incidence of Tuberculosis in cattle, can be found on this link to Tb.Information.com.

And you will find previous work on SUE done by Defra, using Carbon monoxide (link) in our 2008 posting on the subject.

Zoonotic tuberculosis - playing with human health?

While Defra and the Badger Trust play mind games with the disease known as 'bovine' tuberculosis, the reason for its eradication was made only too clear in yesterday's Times newspaper.(link)

Unfortunately, this article by Dominic Kennedy, is hidden behind a pay wall, but briefly he has picked up on a increase in tuberculosis, possibly linked to pets and companion mammals, in people under 40 who would have been born after the cattle TB eradication sweep of the 1950s and 60s, and also the widespread pasteurisation of milk

Mr. Kennedy quotes a consultant from Liverpool's Heart and Chest Hospital, Prof. Peter Davies, who explains:

" The more TB there is in the world the more the chances are that it's going to spread. This is why we are trying to control TB in cows and other animals. There have been cases in which pets and humans have been infected with the same strain. One possible explanation for the increase is that there is more transmission from wildlife to humans."

Almost a decade ago, the then Chief Medical Officer remarked that if 'tuberculosis is being controlled successfully, there will be a fall in cases of bovine TB involving under-35s born in the UK.'

But Mr. Kennedy reports that statistics from Public Health England,(link) (formerly the Health Protection Agency) suggest that Britain has failed to get the disease under control, even though their 2012 report states:

The number and proportion of cases due to M.bovis continues to be very low, suggesting that the epidemic in bovine and non- bovine animals is not spilling significantly into the human population.

They could have added 'yet' to that rather comforting statement. But as Z Tuberculosis is a slow burn disease, exposure now is unlikely to become a full blown disease problem for several years, if not decades.

Mr. Kennedy points out that PHE's statistics for m.bovis infections, show that only 5 cases in British-born people in the under 35 age group had been recorded for the entire period 2000-2005, but they now confirm 23 infections in British-born people under the age of 45 between 2005 and 2012.

But we learn that many farmers with lesioned reactors in cattle, alpacas, sheep, deer or pigs have not been contacted by PHE for screening at all. And if they have, and they have had positive blood tests (rather than just chest X rays, which may well prove to be a bit late) they are counted as 'monitored' or 'watched' but not 'positive' to m.bovis in these stats.
So very similar to our own Defra's TB in 'other species' statistics, only a positive culture sample (not bloods) is counted?

Also there appears to be a hike in cases labelled m.tuberculosis complex in the published PHE data. This is the overall term for bacteria of that type, including but not exclusively m.bovis. So while drug therapy is tweaked to accommodate m.bovis, the data may not be altered. The PHE report explains:

Among all culture confirmed cases, 97.1% (5,048/5,200) were identified with Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection; 1.0% (54) with Mycobacterium africanum; 0.7% (35) with Mycobacterium bovis; and 1.2% (63) with Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) bacteria which were not further differentiated.

Historically the passage of data between AHVLA and Public Health is a one way street. AHVLA have to report cases of TB lesioned animals to PHE, but very rarely is contact made with AHVLA to spoligotype the strain found in humans and run it's cause to ground.

And that is incredibly frustrating for the staff at AHVLA, who have to jump through all kinds of data protection hoops to share these vital communications.

 Mr. Kennedy's story has details about how the disease has affected Dianne Summers (link), whose story we have explored many times.






Public Health England still quantify 'risk' to zTuberculosis as exposure to 'unpasteurised milk, foreign travel, drugs and inhabiting homeless shelters'. But exposure to the increasing amount of bacteria from ‘environmental’ sources is an unknown quantity. Neither Dianne Summers nor her alpacas have been exposed to any of PHE's list of ‘risk’ opportunities, but the alpacas are dead and Dianne has z Tuberculosis.

What is thought to be the first case of zTuberculosis as an  occupational disease (link) was reported at an inquest this year. This was thought to be a case of recent exposure in an abattoir worker and farmer from Uttoxeter. It is not thought that Mr. Sargeant ticked any of PHE's boxes for 'risk' either.

And finally, we would also remind readers of  this case (link) of a young Cornish woman, her child and her dog, all infected by the same strain of zTuberculosis in 2007. The source was thought to be badgers which inhabited the bottom of her garden.

And again, there is no box on PHE's risk form which would generate a tick for that.

Honouring the Lie

The expression 'honouring the lie' was used by a friend a few weeks ago, and it ties in very neatly with the extraordinary claims surrounding widespread vaccination of badgers with BCG.

We won't repeat ourselves with the background to all this, which started here (link) in 2010 with an amazing headline from the BBC.
Progress of a sort was made last year (link) and the '74 per cent' was quietly reduced to 54 percent. A fair drop. And remember that this was on pre screened, non infected badgers. Not an indiscriminately trapped hotchpotch with just under half (FERA's figure for badgers excluded from the headline 844) already positive to three diagnostic tests for zoonotic Tuberculosis.

 Unfortunately those headlines in 2010 are still wafting around, still stacked as 'science', still believed,(link) and used to hoover up funds. So if they don't believe us, and think vaccinating badgers for zTB is like vaccinating children for measles, perhaps the Wildlife Trusts should take note of the EFRA Comittee's report on vaccination published earlier this year (link) where they spell out some of the points which we have made:

45. As with the 2010 study, the higher figure from the 2012 work (76%) is widely quoted[74] despite the more sensitive and specific test showing the effect of vaccination was to reduce the risk of a positive result to the lower figure of 54%. In order for vaccination to be considered part of a strategy to eradicate bovine TB we first need to establish what level of efficacy can be expected.

Precisely. To license this product, no efficacy data was produced: so it's no use the little poppets waving their collecting boxes and bleating that 'If it didn't work, it wouldn't have a license'. It does. But BCG for badgers  has a ' Limited Marketing Authority'  (LMA) license only. Which in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's  (VMD) own words, means that "efficacy data is limited" and "the applicant must demonstrate the benefits outweigh any risks".

Crucially VMD state:

"Decisions as to whether the vaccine is suitable for use in a particular situation are outside the VMD's statutory role [snip ] and are the responsibility of the end user".

But back to the EFRA report which echoes those eerily silent squeaks from Defra when the headline of '74 per cent ' was launched, and in the two years since then. The EFRA report notes, amongst other points, that launching BCG into an endemically infected population of badgers, (as is being done now), may just make things a whole lot worse for many years longer:

62. [] However, it remains the case that vaccination does not remove and has no effect on already-infected badgers. Indeed, mitigating the effect of the disease through vaccination may increase the survival time of carriers and secretors.[98]

This nails the misconception that a single jab of BCG vaccine will prevent tuberculosis in the first place. It will not. If it works at all, and in almost half the pre screened candidates vaccinated with BCG, the vaccine does not work, it reduces the size of lesions and thus some of the bacterial spread from them.
But tuberculosis is still there. So badgers will have a little bit of 'tuberculosis' - as in be a 'a little bit pregnant'? They still have lesions and still spread bacteria. As EFRA correctly point out.

63. Benefits from vaccination would be expected to accrue incrementally over several years as the number of badgers vaccinated increased and infected badgers died off. Although, according to Defra, most individual badgers already infected with bovine TB will die off within five years, it is likely that annual vaccination would need to last many years more to be successful.[99]

For vaccination to produce herd immunity, a significant proportion of badgers need to be captured. The Carter et al research suggested that vaccination reduced the risk of a positive test result by 54% in vaccinated individuals.

However, if only 50% of badgers were trapped and vaccinated with a vaccine that is 54% effective then just a quarter of the badger population would have a reduced risk of infection - and that is assuming that those vaccinated were not already infected.

The more endemic the disease the more difficult it will be and the longer it will take for vaccination to be effective.[100]

Quite. A lot of 'ifs' there, and many assumptions of current disease status, trapping rates and vaccine efficacy.
So why are the Wildlife Trusts, Badger Trusts and Uncle Tom Cobley Brian May and all,  still ratting on that indiscriminate vaccination of an endemically infected badger population, will zap zoonotic Tuberculosis in the population, within 5 years - for ever?

And have you noticed that all this raises it's head in the middle of yet another consultation (link) on culling badgers?

And that really is 'Honouring the Lie'.

Playing Mind Games?

This post has been updated. Please see link at the end.

We import much from America but one such product, we could do without. Arriving during the 'cold war' in the 1950s and known as the DELPHI technique, it cleverly drives a meeting to pre-determined end. Once you've been to a meeting set up under these conditions, the symptoms are quite recognisable. They are a method of achieving a consensus for what Government want to achieve without actually bothering to ask the participants.


Group gatherings, by invitation only, are arranged and selected participants invited to “help determine” policy in one field or another. These valuable people are supposedly there to provide input which will then help officials make final decisions. Sounds a ground breaking democratic system doesn’t it? Localism in action.

Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving and the 'facilitator' who steers and often records the meeting,  while pretending to be helpful, neutral, non directing and friendly, is actually there for exactly the opposite reason. To see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting. In this case Defra.

 A series of such meetings have been arranged to 'plan' Defra's next zTB strategy, presently out for a 'consultation' and which is due to end on September 26th. These gatherings are interesting, if only to see which way the apparatchiks who run Defra, plan to drive their next round of cattle measures carnage forward. And it isn't pretty.

In fact it is brutal, suicidal and with no reference to historical failures, which although casually mentioned, lacked a fuller explanation as to why they didn't work. You'll find that here where we discuss what has become known as the 'Downie era' in the Republic of Ireland.

The meetings are held under Chatham House rules, so we can't say who said what - just the gist of the discussion which we list below.

* Vets present pointed out that although 'lay testing' was up for discussion, as far as they were concerned, that subject was a 'done deal' with tenders already out. So not so much a consultation as a mission statement?

* As more and more responsibility for dealing with past governments' prevarication over this disease (Zoonotic tuberculosis) appears to be passed to cattle farmers, the message was pretty clear. No. Not until wildlife control is a key part of any strategy.

* The thorny question of cost, which Defra want to offload too, was neatly sidestepped as "hugely important", "will be discussed in detail at the end" .... and then ooops, 30 seconds remaining, we've run out of time. Really?  What a surprise. So who is willing to pay? We don't know, but it is not the Department which signed up to an International TB Eradication Strategy, and failed to carry it out..

* Compensation for reactors was something Defra make no secret of wanting to reduce: but if there were less reactors the question would not arise of course. Insurance is still a big no say the loss adjusters. This will continue while levels remain so high and are hemorrhaging the mainly  profitable farm insurance budget. And that is both for farmer's individual insurance, or some type of mutual scheme black hole.

* The New Zealand model appears to take a lot of time and space in the Consultation documentation, and was discussed pushed at these meetings. But which one? There have been two, and we take a lead here from TB Information.com who reveals that the Kiwi's second effort appeared much more successful than the earlier one. And it is the earlier one, they point out, which Defra are following.

* Wildlife management, particularly of badgers in the European Union member states, was mentioned. But not how it is achieved.  And there was a predictable slippage of the 'V' word into most Defra-ese, at every opportunity. Our views on the use of BCG vaccination of either badgers or cattle are well known so we won't repeat them. Suffice to say we've read the paperwork, seen that derogatory 'Pump Priming' phrase, (used regularly to get farmers to accept the 'V' concept) and have experienced the 'hard sell' of this idea, with no acceptance that the reality is not living up to that dream.

 * Many participants wanted a more targeted cull of badgers, using information already gathered by AHVLA at the beginning of a breakdown. Also mentioned was the PR catastrophe of a widespread indiscriminate cull, which it was said, had been appallingly handled.

* And the main conclusion was the lack of trust both farmers and vets now had in Defra; without which no policy can be operated at all.

Brutal, top down cattle measures have failed in the past, and they look set to be introduced again, with no noticeable effect when the cause of the problem is still roaming free. The difference now is that farmers will be asked to pay for them..

 This chart was first aired at the Killarney Epidemiological Conference, and shows the AHVLA risk assessments results drawn from new confirmed breakdowns in Devon, during 2004.

These AHVLA maps and their vital information  remain unused.

Responsible for those new breakdowns were not 30 per cent badgers, not even 50 per cent badgers as is being bandied about by successive mathematical modelers and the ISG. No less than 76 per cent of those breakdowns were identified as being caused by badgers and only 8 per cent purchased cattle. Unknown original accounted for 16 per cent of breakdowns.

So, why are Defra adding extra goldplating to the European Union's already brutal cattle measures?

Update: From the Worcester meeting, Alistair Driver reports similar comments to those expressed above, including that lack of 'trust' in Defra. And particularly the absolute need for realistic measures involving wildlife before any more pain is heaped on beleaguered cattle farmers. Full article with contributor comments is on this link.

His master's voice (2)

We've mentioned before, the all pervasive influence of the European Union on agricultural policies in Great Britain. And once again, it has stamped its collective foot, this time on the thorny subject of zoonotic tuberculosis.

Comments Instructions from DG SANCO who oversee what AHVLA are up to, while spending wasting European cash, last year  included this blast :

"It is however of utmost importance that there is a political consensus and commitment to long-term strategies to combat TB in badgers as well as in cattle.

The Welsh eradication plan will lose some impetus as badger culling will now be replaced with badger vaccination. This was not part of the original strategy that consisted of a comprehensive plan that has now been disrupted.

There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that badger vaccination will reduce the incidence of TB in cattle. However there is considerable evidence to support the removal of badgers in order to improve the TB status of both badgers and cattle.

UK politicians must accept their responsibility to their own farmers and taxpayers as well as to the rest of the EU and commit to a long-term strategy that is not dependent on elections."

.. which was pretty encouraging. But in order to collect those Euros, certain conditions are set down for our current Secretary of State, Owen Paterson MP.

These are detailed in this letter, and go a long way to explaining AHVLA's  latest foray suicide mission of GB's vaccinating cattle against bTB.




 The letter initially unravels even more of the allowances made in the recent past, which have enabled farms under TB restriction to continue trading, thus allowing successive governments to do nothing to prevent reinfection from diseased badgers. It explains:

In the past four years the Commission has allocated considerable funds to support the UK bTB programmes (EUR 116,3 Million in total).

We therefore expect significant improvements in the epidemiological situation in 2013 that show efficient use of Union funds. This is absolutely necessary in view of a further renewal of the EU financial support to this programme.

So there we have it. He who pays the piper is entitled to expect results a tune?


As well as the continual lock down of all farms under TB restriction with few outlets for live cattle but an increasing pile of dead ones, the EU has instructed that within a timeline of 10 years, cattle vaccines be trialled.

This is explained, with expected dates, in Annex 1, p4 of a letter to Mr. Paterson earlier this year:

In order to provide answers to the still open scientific questions on bTB vaccination, substantial experimental research and large scale long lasting (possibly 2-5 years) trials, also under EU field conditions, are needed [start 2013, end 2015-2016].

The EU wish list goes on to detail the need for an extremely sensitive DIVA test, which  must also be developed alongside any vaccine. This is to differentiate between vaccinated animals and those with actual exposure to tuberculosis. Also mentioned are the hurdles of international trade, should the resultant product ever be granted a full VMD (Veterinary Medicines Directorate) license. The end date is 2023 / 25.

The timing of this announcement, smack in the middle of yet another Consultation Mission statement on how AHVLA propose to tackle z TB (in cattle, if not in anything else) has echoes of  FERA's 2010 mischief
And understandably, AHVLA are more than enthusiastic about another 10 year job creation programme. Even if it is financed by the EU in order to gain more cash with which to shoot more cattle, alpacas, sheep, pigs, and deer - but very few badgers.

 But we remember AHVLA's last efforts to torture this 85 year old product known as BCG into a usable vaccine for cattle. A process first tried over 50 years ago.

 Published last year AHVLA's  Project SE3227 failed to prevent bTB in naturally infected animals in the UK.  So, as AHVLA  instructed by their paymasters, rush off to get this project started, has something dramatic happened to BCG vaccine development in the very few months since their last effort?

'May' be divine intervention by the good Doctor has had a hand in its refinement in these last months, along with that of a 100 percent reliable DIVA test.
And ultimately, will this product ever be fully licensed or prevent inevitable trade bans?

In the face of the enormous challenge faced by our sentinel tested cattle from bacteria left by infected and infectious badgers, answers to all the above are 'unlikely' - which is a polite word for 'in your dreams'.

We see cattle vaccines as a very unfortunate red herring, as are BCG vaccines for badgers, where the very word 'vaccine' appears confused with 'immunity' - regardless of the candidate and in particular, regardless of the efficacy of the vaccine.
When the naive are being sold the concept of 'immunity within 5 years' regardless of a candidate's disease status at the start of the programme, and using a vaccine which has submitted no data for efficacy as part of its licensing procedure, the following questions were asked by an experienced and published epidemiologist:

Where is the actual evidence for any of this statement? [All clear in 5 years]

There are a number of assumptions here, some of which are very dubious.

The percentage necessary to control an outbreak of disease is the percentage immune, not vaccinated. We don't know how many badgers will actually become immune.

None of those that are infected will. Any cubs born to an excreting (not necessarily sick) badger may well become infected before they even leave the sett.Vaccination will not be effective at this stage, so how is eradication in 4 or 5 years going to happen?"

It isn't. A modeled benefit of just 9 per cent after 5 years was accepted for the Welsh IAA badger vaccine project.  So while our dead cattle mountain continues to grow, a whole shoal of these red herrings are floating around, ready to swim into the nets of the gullible.
Our industry deserves better.

.

Booker on Badgers

Sunday's Telegraph carried Christopher Booker's article on the effect too many badgers have on other small mammals and birds. Earthworms may be their food of choice, but if it's too wet, too dry or too crowded, what then? Badger numbers have exploded and their success - or that of their protectors - has brought about carnage to other species and a  predictable parallel explosion in the disease which is endemic in them: Zoonotic tuberculosis.

While pushing ahead with the two small pilot badger culls, to ascertain whether free shooting of a nocturnal, subterranean, group mammal is 'humane', Booker points out that Owen Paterson has other plans for future control measures:

"This, of course, is why he repeatedly insists that the ultimate answer must lie, first, in developing much more efficient DNA testing to identify those badger setts which are genuinely infected; and, second, in looking at other methods of killing infected badgers more efficiently and humanely.

No one would argue for a return to the use of cyanide poisoning, banned in 1984 because it resulted in badgers dying a death just as unpleasant in its own way as that from TB itself. But the "euthanasia" of infected setts by gassing should not be ruled out (and could arguably be permitted under both the Bern Convention and the 1996 Protection of Badgers Act, which both allow the killing of sick animals for humane reasons).

One way or another, this disease has brought about a catastrophe for which a solution must be found."

A catastrophe is a very good description.

And the ecological imbalance which too many badgers cause,  we explored this in this posting and this one and also here, with a quote from an article published in the Journal of Zoology on the survival prospects for hedgehogs.







And on Mr. Paterson's future plans to specifically target sources of Zoonotic tuberculosis, as opposed to population reduction aka the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial, our thoughts can be found in this posting.

 Here is Christopher Booker's full article.

Go compare ....

.... the actions of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' post infection treatment of a farm where all the cattle were slaughtered due to Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and one where cattle are slaughtered out to control Bovine (Zoonotic) Tuberculosis (zTB).

More and more herds of cattle, alpacas and farmed deer are falling into the latter category. It is a drastic step, but if cattle or 'other species' reactors reach a level where infection has been such that the rest of the herd is likely to become reactors at the next test, then permission is sought from Defra to 'depopulate'. Which is a comforting word for slaughtering the lot.

We told the story of one such cattle herd, in this harrowing tale, and followed it up with the story of their restocking in this post.  But only now, five long months after the loss of their pedigree dairy herd, are Louis and Gillian Bothwell able to reflect on the cost of this traumatic exercise. And the comparison to an Defra / AHVLA instigated herd 'depopulation' due to a non zoonotic virus is staggering.


During the carnage of FMD, farmers received a valuation for their animals which reflected loss of production too. Some were also given the opportunity of doing Cleansing and Disinfecting (C&D) work themselves, under supervision: all this to keep the rural economy alive until farms were able to restock. The going rate was over twice the minimum wage at the time. If farmers didn't choose to do the work, Defra sent in teams to do it for them. And only when they were sure that no trace of the FMD virus was left to reinfect incoming stock, was the farm given the all clear to buy in cattle again. Thus taxpayer's investment was protected and not frittered away in repeated recrudescence of disease.

After a herd depopulation for zTuberculosis, a bacteria which not only affects but can kill humans, the compensation money for reactor cattle is a meagre, average, tabular basic, which is not enough to buy even 3/4 of good pedigree cow. The farm then receives a 'wish list' from Defra / AHVLA of all the work which must be done before restocking is allowed under license. And all this work is at the farmer's own expense. And of course, after decades of non-policy and hefty claims, very few of us are able to obtain insurance, at any price.

Thus a farm depopulated for zoonotic tuberculosis faces several months with no income, compounded with loans and mortgages still to service and an AHVLA shopping list of biosecurity 'must do' jobs to prevent badger access to buildings and feed stores. But not a goddam thing is aimed at the carriers of the bacterium which caused the havoc in the first place and are likely to still be roaming the grassland they call 'home'..

How can that be good value for taxpayers?



And is it survivable for any business, let alone a fledgling one, deeply committed having 'invested for the long term' in British agriculture?

This is the milking parlour at the Bothwell's Staffordshire farm, and this week they updated their story to Farmers Guardian's political editor, Alistair Driver.






 A year ago the Bothwells were full of hope. They had invested £500,000 in upgrading their Staffordshire dairy unit and were pouring their heart and soul into building the business. “We were just the right age to do it. We had our own heifers coming in. We were getting where we wanted to be. But this has completely shattered everything,” Gillian Bothwell said.

Describing the nightmare, her story continues:

The financial toll is huge on the family, already in excess of £100,000 and counting, after more than three months without a milk cheque, preceded by falling yields, plus the cost of getting the farm back into a condition to re-stock. So how do you cope with a young family of three boys without any income for three months?

“All the time you are living with this shadow over you, worrying about what is going to happen,” Gillian said. And Louis points out that while still under TB restriction, they are unable to sell calves not needed for herd replacements and  accommodation is getting crowded.

"We have got 40 calves which need to be fed, no money coming in and we can’t sell them. Winter is coming and we are not going to have enough room,” Louis said.

While the new dairy herd is mainly kept inside 24/7 as AHVLA instructed (they did allow limited grazing between 10 and 3 when no badgers were thought to be about - no comments from us about that daft idea) after two clear tests on their remaining youngstock, (who were grazing outside) the Bothwell's July test revealed six reactors in these youngsters. And knowing what we (and AHVLA if they care to read up on it) do know about the survival of m.bovis in the lea of hedges, away from a couple of hours of direct UV light, the advice given to the Bothwells was crackers. Stark staring bloody mad.

 The badgers which caused that huge infection and 97 reactors last autumn and led to the slaughter of 147 prime pedigree holsteins, are still there. Many will be still infected. Those that are have not miraculously recovered, died or emigrated. And either they or the detritus they leave behind will infect these cattle again. And again and again...

And so to go back to our original point: the restocking protocol is a starkly different scenario when herds are slaughtered out for a non zoonotic animal virus, from that experienced by cattle farmers who have the misfortune to share cattle grazing with tuberculous badgers and lose a herd.

 And that is very, very wrong from every possible angle.

Cull conflict

(This post has been updated)

As two small pilot badger culls get underway in Somerset and Gloucestershire, the airwaves are full with pictures of badgerists holding vigils and farmers showing off their prime cattle - still alive at the moment.

Dear old Krebs has been wheeled out again, spluttering that the pilot shooting party idea is 'insane'. And he could well be right. But how much more insane was the political tweaking of his original very well thought out project by a diminutive professor, who was sooooo proud to identify his puppeteers?

All this current discord is a predictable spin off from the mathematical models produced by Professor Bourne's RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial team. Their base 'rough assumptions' and 'estimates' projected up, up and away and grabbed eagerly by Defra's mandarins as an excuse for inaction.

Historical veterinary data was available. It was not used. Epidemiological information about this bacterium and how it performs in various situations has been known for over a century. That was ignored.
Job creation has flourished, as both badgers, cattle and now many other mammals have died - from one of the most deadly zoonoses on this planet. Tuberculosis.

 This argument or polemic should never be about badgers or cattle. It is about an international statute to protect humans from tuberculosis. And that is the point.

 The more infected badgers around, the more Defra's heap of skin tested sentinel cattle reactors has grown.

Our chart shows the various loosening up of badger controls over decades of non-strategy and the inevitable rise in cattle slaughtering.  In 1997 a moratorium was placed on Section 10 (2) (a) of the Protection of Badgers Act . And in answer to Owen Paterson's Parliamentary Questions almost a decade ago:

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 Political Animal 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.


Defra has studiously ignored its own dead sentinels while piling more insults and restrictions on their owners.


The inevitable result is more upspill of zoonotic tuberculosis into other mammals (alpacas, sheep, pigs, and especially cats and dogs) despite valiant attempts by the AHVLA carcase counters to dumb down their own true figures. Which means more opportunities for transmission of zoonotic tuberculosis to the owners of these animals. And that's without mentioning direct contact with detritus of infected badgers, marking children's play areas or domestic gardens.

And that is the reason for culling badgers.

 For the future, to quote a timely and iconic statement, we have a dream. We would like Krebs' original prediction of PCR diagnostics to 'identify infected badger setts within 2 years' to be brought to fruition. No more mathematically modeled plots with indiscriminate population reduction overseen by a quango which has made no secret of its opposition to culling badgers for any reason at all.

And we support targeted underground culls based on the presence of disease.

Thus cattle farmers can see a badger and appreciate his stripey face, without that sinking feeling of expectation of the inevitable cattle reactors at the next TB test.

 Edit: An addition to this piece from today's Farmers Guardian online, where opposition spokesperson and MP for inner city Wakefield, the fragrant Mary Creagh, hinted at plans to abandon badger control, should her party gain power in 2015.

Allowing for a couple of 'off' periods where badgers rear more cubs than have been culled, that's about a year away. So we better get on with Plan B hadn't we?

All clear - in 5 years?

We have been alerted to literature produced by Wildlife Trusts in the English midlands, which tell their members and contributors that if badgers are vaccinated, tuberculosis, the disease which is endemic in them, will cease to be a problem in 5 years. Thus the conclusion is no cull, vaccinate instead.

Sounds easy doesn't it? But is it?

 The Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust are confident that there will be no bovine TB in badgers after their five year vaccination programme.

 They do mention that vaccination only works in badgers that do not have the disease already.




 But Neil Pilcher, the Senior Conservation Officer at the Trust, says

"..those badgers in the area that are already infected with the virus will die off within the project timescale."

Very comforting. For the pedants amongst us (and of course for Mr. Pilcher ) mycobacterium bovis is a bacterium. The clue is in the full title. It is not a virus. And it would be naive to assume that all or most of uninfected local Leicestershire badgers will be cage trapped and vaccinated annually over the next 5 years, and equally naive to assume that because this product is licensed, it actually works.

As we've said before, the license was issued by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) in 2010 on 'elf and safety' data, holds a Limited Marketing Authority (LMA) license only and as VMD so quaintly point out, its efficacy is the 'responsibility of the end user'. 

 Also piling in on the act is the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust, who point out that the pilot culls are "being undertaken as part of measures against the devastating impacts of bovine tuberculosis (TB), a disease which is carried and transmitted by badgers and other wildlife (one water vole??) as well as cattle, and costs the UK cattle farming industry tens of millions of pounds every year".

They also say that:

With the Derbyshire/Staffordshire border identified as another hotspot for bovine TB, a cull could be carried out in Derbyshire in 2014.

After this overview they then regurgitate - incorrectly - the conclusions of the Badger Dispersal Trial RBCT, and thus the Trust condemns culling. Not culling ' as done in this trial', but completely. They point out that an injectible badger vaccine is now available and has been used by Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust.
They continue:

In Derbyshire, we are planning a five-year programme of badger vaccination, starting in 2014. This will contribute to the local control of bovine TB by creating immunity in a population of Derbyshire badgers.

Badger BCG vaccine alone is not the solution to bovine TB, but it does have an immediate effect with no known negative impact other than cost.

Our five-year programme aims to make a worthwhile contribution towards finding a solution to a serious animal disease problem and to explore the practicalities of vaccination. This important work will take a great deal of our time and resources and is currently unfunded.

Please make a contribution to this appeal to help protect Derbyshire’s badgers and fight the scourge of bovine TB.

He's right about badger BCG not being the solution to the problem but no known negative impact? And the cost is £2500 - £4000 per hectare. Or as Wales found out, £662 per badger in one year ?
With already infected wild badgers cage trapped, stressed out, jabbed and released, the jury is out.

So where has this mythical '5 years' to achieve badger immunity come from? Look no further than a Jack and Jill Q & A page on the Defra / AHVLA website. Of course neither of these august bodies are interested in the health of badgers, only in so far as it affects cattle and taxpayer's cash. For this they have a statutory responsibility to test and pay up for tested cattle reactors. A responsibility they seem loathe to shoulder, but let that pass.

The Q & A goes like this:

How long will it take to see a positive effect on the levels of bovine TB in cattle? Mathematical modelling work carried out by researchers at both the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA, formerly the Central Science Laboratory) and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) showed that a number of factors will influence the how long it will take for a reduction in disease levels in badgers to translate into an impact on cattle disease.

Whether wild badgers can be caught at all ? We understand there are not many volunteers from genuinely wild populations which are completely different from Woodchester's peanut fed pets.

These include vaccine efficacy, the proportion of badgers vaccinated, what contribution badgers make to the disease in cattle and how effective cattle controls are at preventing cattle to cattle spread.

As we have said, no data was submitted for BCG vaccine efficacy. And all these assumptions for badger BCG rely on mathematically modeled blood tests of those badgers which turned up for a health check.

The contribution to the spread of zoonotic tuberculosis made by badgers is easy. AHVLA risk assessments after new breakdowns, say up to 90% in endemic areas.

And as for the last 40 years of collating information on strains, cattle haven't plastered the countryside with a kaleidoscope of different TB spoligotypes, cattle movements and cattle to cattle spread is overstated by a long mile.

The vaccine is unlikely to benefit already infected badgers, in which case these animals will need to die off naturally for the disease risk to cattle from badgers to be reduced.

Unlikely? It could finish them off, but let that pass.



How long will allowing diseased badgers to 'die off naturally' take and how many victims skin test reactors or pets and companion mammals will die on the way?

Most badgers have a lifespan of just 3 to 5 years and the annual population turnover of the UK badger population is estimated to be 30%, therefore we expect that it will take 5 years to vaccinate a sufficient number of naive badgers to achieve herd immunity and reduce TB incidence within a badger population.

Other work by FERA suggested that an infected badger can live for up to 9 years: an infected sow produces cubs annually over that time and in the confines of the sett, it is likely she will have infected her cubs before they see daylight - or a needle.
And finally from this comforting load of tosh, where all badgers will volunteer for their jabs, the vaccination miraculously works - immediately and no one sees the death throws of a tuberculous badger:

We do not know how long it will take for this to translate in to a reduction in cattle herd breakdowns

Actually, you do. Defra predicted that in some of their paperwork - and it ain't 5 years. A thumbnail of facts about badger BCG can be found here, where Defra quote an estimated time frame for the procedure to affect the population and its upspill into sentinel tested cattle, thus:

"If only 50% of badgers can be trapped and injected with a vaccine which is only 50% effective, and only 50% of farms are involved the disease control benefit becomes rapidly diminished in any given year - 50% of 50% of 50% = 12.5% of the potential available benefit. While there will be a benefit, as any level of vaccination will produce a benefit, it will take substantially longer to appear in terms of reduced cattle breakdowns and vaccination will have to continue for a much longer time in order to accrue the benefit."

That paragraph contains a lot of 'ifs' - as do most of Defra's predictions about badgers and the zoonotic tuberculosis which they carry. But the first 50 per cent (badgers trapped) appears optimistic when applied to a wild population, with single figures being bandied about by some areas.
The 50 per cent efficacy is also a mathematical model, but possibly a good deal more accurate than the mischievous and misleading headline of '74 per cent' which is still doing the rounds.
But bear in mind that BCG does not prevent tuberculosis in any candidate. It may, if it works at all, reduce the size of and spread from lesions. So over generations may damp down disease.

 But Defra have also told us why they are so keen on badger BCG.

This phrase is contained in a 2011 paper on controlling zoonotic tuberculosis:

a): Bovine tuberculosis Animal species: Badger vaccination: Description of the used vaccination, therapeutic or other scheme Badger BCG licensed in March 2010 has been used as part of the Badger Vaccine Deployment Project to build farmer confidence in vaccines as a key tool in an eradication programme.

To build farmer confidence?
What an extraordinary reason for promoting a vaccine which may not work at all, or may not work in an acceptable time scale, for a zoonotic disease which kills.

Death by 1000 cuts

This is the story of a beef farmer who is giving up the unequal struggle between his business and badgers infected with tuberculosis.

A story with which we can both empathise and sympathise.

Until 2007  Mervyn Mullard farmed (please note past tense here) 200 head of beef suckler cattle, all bearing his own herdmark - with one exception. The herd bull, which was replaced every 5 or 6 years to avoid inbreeding when his daughters were brought into the herd. And since then, Mr. Mullard has lost 130 of those cattle as reactors to TB.

Left with just 50 cows and their calves, the business is no longer viable, and rather then put himself and his business through this crazy 60 day merry-go-round of testing and slaughter, he accepts that if TB doesn't take the remainder of his cattle, he will let them go by natural wastage. No more heifers will be retained as breeding cattle. The vegans may clap their hands, but buying imported beef to feed the masses, while consigning the British countryside to tuberculous wildlife, in the longterm is not very smart.
 Farmers Weekly report that:

Mr Mullard, who farms 200 mixed cattle on his farm in Bishop's Castle, Shropshire, said he had spent nearly 50 years building up his herd, which had remained free of the disease until badger numbers exploded in the area. It has left him in no doubt that a cull has to be part of a series of measures to tackle the disease in cattle and allow healthy wildlife to flourish.

"I want to see healthy badgers and healthy cattle, but at the moment that's not possible. It's left me in the position where I won't be replacing my heifers and will instead be winding down my herd."

"I only used to see one or two badgers across the whole farm, but now I can see 20 badgers in just one field some evenings," he said. "I have even had sick badgers in my garden, which is horrible to see".

"I want to see healthy badgers and healthy cattle, but at the moment that's not possible. It's left me in the position where I won't be replacing my heifers and will instead be winding down my herd."

This story is expanded in Farmers Guardian with an intriguing comment about vaccinating these infected badgers, some of which have been seen sick and dying in Mr. Mullard's garden.
 Mr. Mullard told Farmers Guardian that:

...he was working with the Badger Trust on a four-year vaccination programme but questioned its effectiveness after only four badgers out of ‘around 50’ were trapped and vaccinated in the first year.

With the rules only allowing [trapping] badgers over two nights he said it was essential that the protocol and methods deployed for vaccinating badgers were improved to make the process more worthwhile.

You did read that correctly. Vaccinators are only allowed to trap on two nights, then they have to walk away. If they catch none, they are allowed a further two nights..
And their trapping success rate? Just 4 out of 50?? And those 50 of unknown health status? Madness.

As is wasting taxpayer's money on testing six times a year for 6 years and killing 130 head of cattle from a closed herd, while leaving sick badgers to reinfect and reinfect and reinfect. Spreading the disease both amongst themselves and to any mammal crossing their infectious path. Madness.

About a mad as this carnage, to which we shall return next week with an update.

The computer doesn't lie.

That is a an phrase used by many to defend reports, discussions, research projects or practically anything really. But is that true?

Regular readers will have noticed that courtesy of Pete, the blog fairy, we've had a face lift giving us a new sleeker look. And a side bar with the most popular posts, or most read, or something like that.

But are they? Only our editors have access to the blogger Dashboard, but guess what?
The computer has lied.

There are half a dozen posts which deserve more prominence than the one describing Brian May swinging a badger around his bushy head.

 That of course is not the airbrushed PR stunner used to advertise Team Badger, but ours is more realistic we think.



We don't believe that one post on that right hand side bar has had 27,856 views either - but we digress.



Below are a few more 'popular posts' which on Blogger count page views should have appeared, but by some strange mathematical fluke by His Lordship Blogger, do not.

 Following Dr. May's wildly inaccurate statements in defence of zoonotic tuberculosis badgers, this post from 2010 attempts to put the record straight on GB's pathetic history of non policies for dealing with zoonotic tuberculosis.





We used a chart of cattle slaughtered, overlaid with different non-strategies and prevarications to illustrate the dramatic increase in deaths, following the various clamp downs on badger control over three decades.







Another post, which on the Blogger computer's list of page views, merited a mention was A Vet's view of the Badger Dispersal Trial RBCT. We posted this one in 2006.

And this posting  was not the first time that the Badger Trust's verbal gymnastics had attracted our attention in our story about TB incidence on the Isle of Man.

And now something which really irritates every cattle farmer with his cattle firmly nailed to the floor, testing every 60 days and shooting many. This posting describes the utter craziness of the imbalance between badger and cattle controls in this country.

We called it  'Relocation'. And unfortunately, animal sanctuaries are still moving badgers around the country, despite even tougher rules on cattle movements. Many sanctuary owners are  never seen without an armful of baby badgers. All seeking new homes, having been 'rescued'.
Want one? Anyone can apply. From any location.




 


Finally the architect of many of our current mathematically modeled problems, bowing to his computer which never lies of course; the arch wizard of the culling trial is in full voice. Professor John Bourne speaking to the Efra Committee..

Read his statements - so many time misquoted - and weep.


And remember, the computer never lies. 

Could do better?

The industry's reaction to Defra's latest Consultation (the third in eight years) on how or whether to cull badgers in response to breakdowns of zoonotic tuberculosis in cattle, is unusually sceptical. In fact pretty much as we posted  last week. And although perhaps more politely phrased, the message is the same.

 Farmers Guardian carries comments from the NFU, in their combined report of David Cameron's visit to North Devon show last week. Polishing bucolic egos, Mr Cameron referred to farmers as the 'backbone' of the rural community. But last November, wasn't it the very same 'David Cameron' who exercised a downward push on CAP payments which have led to a 30 per cent reduction for the UK? It was. So UK farmers will certainly need that 'backbone' to survive heavily subsidised imports from their closest trading competitors. But we digress.

 FG's report quotes from an NFU  letter to the minister and their concern over this latest consultation:

“The NFU and most farmers accept that TB eradication will require simultaneous action on a number of fronts. But the common perception is that additional cattle controls have been progressively ratcheted up along with a promise of a comprehensive approach but, ultimately, no action has been taken on badgers,” the letter states.

The letter warns the document is ‘lacking in any detailed rationale or risk-based analysis for many of the elements of the strategy’.

But there's plenty of detail on cattle measures in the damn thing, and therein lies the problem. As we said when it was launched, shaft me once, shame on you. Shaft me twice, shame on me.

And this is the third bundle produced by Defra's apparatchiks ' yet still there is SFA nothing positive for cattle, sheep alpaca or pig farmers to support on a TB policy 'in the round'. Just vague fluff on contraception, vaccination, and new technology for badgers. Sometime..

 The Western Morning News carried the story in which it noted a significant change of tack for the NFU: 

.... formerly seen as broadly supportive of the Government's bovine TB eradication programme, the organisation (NFU)  has signalled its dissatisfaction with progress so far.

There is widespread anger that officials have launched a "tick box" consultation, threatening restrictions on livestock movements, before pilot badger culls have even started.

And in a further action of defiance the NFU has said it will not complete the DEFRA consultation – an electronic questionnaire rating answers by multiple choice – but will instead set out its core principles, which puts building trust among farmers at the top of the list.

Kevin Pearce, NFU director for England and Wales, told the Western Morning News he didn't "doubt the sincerity" of the Secretary of State Owen Paterson but said cattle farmers had been given so many broken promises they "just don't believe it".

We too, do not doubt the sincerity of the Secretary of State. The same cannot be said of the mandarins who run his department. And the NFU are correct about the tick box, computer read, multiple choice answer to very specific questions.

Our advice would be the same. Write your own answer, but make it short and make your feelings clear. 

August update.

A couple of snippets have come in to us this last couple of days to which we'll link, and just paste tasters for readers to explore the stories for themselves. Meanwhile we are ploughing on through the extraordinarily cryptic Consultation document, looking for commitment to a policy which includes wildlife management.

Not that we need one from our Secretary of State, Owen Paterson MP, but from the lackeys who have prepared the 117 page document. And probably prepared the previous versions as well.

But until that elusive beast 'vaccination' arrives and while Defra are still dreaming up ways to clobber cattle farmers, Professor Glyn Hewinson, speaking at an AHVLA briefing last week warned that Defra's estimate of a time line for an oral BCG vaccine for badgers was 'optimistic'.

Reported by Wales on line, Prof. Hewinson pointed out that:

“The draft TB eradication strategy that’s just been released by Defra suggests a timeline of 2019 for the first availability of an oral vaccine, but that is the most optimistic timeline and of course it’s still at the research stage, and if we knew exactly how long it would take then it wouldn’t be research.”

He also said that AHVLA had no idea of the effect BCG orally baited badgers would have on cattle TB, which is why AHVLA wanted more farmers to sign up.

“One of the big evidence gaps we have in TB control is how vaccinating badgers will affect TB in cattle,” he said. “One of the things we’re very keen on is to encourage people to make use of Defra’s funding pool for training lay vaccinators to go out and vaccinate badgers so that we can generate data to see what effect vaccinating badgers might have on cattle TB.”

It would be churlish to point out that vaccinating un-prescreened badgers which are already infected with zoonotic tuberculosis, is perhaps not the brightest of ideas. And that not all wild badgers are as keen to participate in this exercise as AHVLA's newly trained vaccinators.

And then there's the problem of chucking shed loads of baited peanuts around in areas where cattle can access them and become reactors to their next skin test. But we'll mention these problems anyway.

 Meanwhile from TBfree England (the original site - not the young pretender) a letter from a Goucestershire vet, Rob Darvill. Mr Darvill writes passionately about how his training was not to deliver death sentences to his client's cattle, while offering them platitudes, but no solution to a problem not of their own making:

"In the area where I practice in Gloucestershire, 78 per cent of the cattle farmers I work with have had a TB breakdown in the past two years. It’s a disease you always hope you’re never going to find in a herd. When you start getting large numbers of reactors you start crossing your fingers and hoping that the next cow, and the next one, will be clear because you’re watching a disaster unfold in front of you and you are powerless to stop it or provide any hope or comfort.

"You’re essentially watching yourself destroy the business of someone who, until that point, you’ve been helping, by treating and curing their animals so they can thrive.

Nothing can prepare you for that."

Click this link for the full text of Mr. Darvill's letter, which describes the problems most SW cattle vets have. The content will also be achingly familiar to any cattle farmer unlucky enough to be farming in a zoonotic TB hotspot.

And finally, a letter in reply to William Langley's article in the Sunday Telegraph (28/07/2013) which we discussed in this posting:

The letter is from Robin Don, of Norfolk who says " Culling badgers is the only way to stop TB ".

SIR – I have great sympathy with Angela Sargent, whose situation as a dairy farmer in Derbyshire is intolerable (report, July 28). Tuberculosis (TB) causes terrible suffering to badgers.

In the worst affected areas, between 50 and 90 per cent of the population is infected. All will eventually die of TB. This cannot be right.

If Derbyshire County Council really cares about its badgers, it will aim to achieve a TB-free badger population. Informed veterinary opinion has established that this will never be achieved by vaccination and certainly not with the BCG vaccine, which has proved its ineffectiveness so conclusively that it is no longer used for humans.

Culling of infected setts to achieve a balanced population is the only sensible solution. Of course this must be done in as humane a way as possible. Vaccination only exacerbates the problem.

"Farmers don't trust Ministers....

.. to beat TB" was the front page headline in the Western Morning News yesterday.

This was the impression given to the paper's editors attending  the first of a series of meetings to discuss Defra's latest consultation on the way forward out of a mess of their own making. Perhaps that headline should have read "Farmers don't trust Defra.. " but we digress..

 The general impression was not one of support.

Too much emphasis on cattle measures which will cripple the industry within the 'zoned' red area, and 'premature' ahead of the pilot culls which have yet to take place, were just two of the points very forcefully made.

 For a partnership to work, then both 'partners' must agree. And farmers attending these meetings had the impression that Defra was kite flying. Passing all the efficiencies costs they could onto cattle farmers, while hoping that they'd agree to at least some, in exchange for ..... what??

The wildlife part of this so-called package was variously described as 'fluff', 'vague' and ill thought out - if had been thought of at all.

And many remarked, as have we, that they'd been here before. In 2005 and 2010.

 It was suggested by one speaker that  Defra had effectively abdicated its responsibility for an EU strategy (on the eradication of zoonotic tuberculosis) to which it was a signatory. And that as its current policy suggestions would put many cattle farmers out of business, recourse to the European Court of Human Rights might be an option?

It was pretty unanimous that the 25 year time line mentioned, was ridiculously long. And that if wildlife reservoirs were tackled, then incidence of zoonotic tuberculosis in cattle, alpacas, sheep, pigs and domestic pets would drop like a stone and very quickly.

 Also bitterly criticised was the idea of zoning, which also reinforced what an expensive farce preMovement testing (introduced as part of the 2005/6 consultation) really was. A shot in its proverbial foot which Defra seems to have missed?

Bio garbage security measures had been put in place by many, they said. But to no good effect at all.

So what is left? The pilot shooting parties? Tiny in size, uncertain in outcome and unproven in effect. And bugger all else for wildlife control which farmers can get their collective teeth into, read and understand. But stacks more cattle measures, which they have read and fear will come.

They note that there is no statute proposed for Camelids bouncing around the country, and no mention of licenses for badger rescue sanctuaries, happily shifting badgers around to anyone who volunteers an orchard for them to play in.

So what now? Do farmers have to take control of this as they did with BSE, to prevent a complete melt down of our cattle industry, and spin off problems into other mammals too?

 We discussed our Plan B in this posting, and our thumbnail conclusion then was to target the disease itself in the following way:

1. A structured investigation using veterinary expertise, to locate clean setts, and protect them. This can be done at the same time as reactor mapping, already done by AHVLA staff - but unused, and gathering dust. Join the farms up into as big an area as possible.

2. Overlay those maps with locations of badger territories interacting with any confirmed reactor animals.

3. Use of cutting edge validated technology (PCR) to confirm infected groups.

4. Targeting only groups so identified by steps 1 and 2 and confirmed by 3 - underground euthanasia using a material which, in a sub lethal dose will not maim, and possibly carried in a product such as this.

There should be complete removal of groups so identified, and only these, to halt the carnage ripping through our countryside. Fewer badgers would be culled and only infectious ones; clean ones protected and nurtured with more space.

What's not to like?

"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'.