Badgers v. Farmers

Describing the overspill of badgerTB into other species including domestic pets, infection passed between people and their pets, the balance of payments deficit and the piling of ever more cattle into the "maw of the government's bTB killing machine", Charlie Brooks in today's Telegraph comments:

The whole situation is utterly depressing for farmers who want to produce food when they get out of bed in the morning, not fill in compensation forms for destroying their livestock. I came across one passionate farmer recently whose family had been in the business for five generations. He is thinking of giving up, because he can't bear the thought of breeding quality pedigree dairy cows simply to feed them into the maw of the Government's bTB killing machine. The future for him and many others is bleak. Official figures show that 4,443 cattle had to be slaughtered in January this year, a rise of almost a third from the same time in 2008. Who knows where we will be next year

The piece is a good thumbnail of the situation across the board, also describing the fate of the poor old badgers in this unholy mess - a consequence definitely not wanted in public view, by 'in denial' Badger Trust supporters..

Though it appears to panic the public far less than swine flu, bTB is not a disease to be taken lightly. Badgers that succumb to it suffer horrific symptoms, including internal lesions, before dying in an emaciated state.

Farmers who are desperately trying to cope with the situation could be forgiven for hoping that badgers will migrate into urban areas and infect a few more cuddly dogs and cats. Only then will any politician really attack this problem with gusto.

They are (migrating)and are being actively encouraged into urban gardens, childrens' sandpits and play areas. But politicians have their single collective brain cell on other trivia things at the moment. Joining the dots on the spread of infectious disease, is quite beyond most.

"Only a cull will save cattle producers" argues Charlie Brooks. "The badgers must go before the farmers do."

Spillover - update

Today's front page headline in the Western Morning News, reads 'Massive rise in Animal TB cases'. That is 'animal' as in species other than badgers (in which the disease is 'endemic'), and sentinel tested cattle, (which if they react to the test for exposure to the bacteria which causes TB, are shot). The paper's report is referring to other mammalian species. Spillover.

Last year, 119 non-bovine creatures contracted the disease, including 33 goats, 31 wild deer, 18 pet cats, 13 alpacas and 10 pigs. Sheep, llamas, dogs and farmed and park deer also fell victim to the strain, which has been responsible for the death of 200,000 cattle over the past 10 years.

Defra squirm out this four fold increase, saying that as badgerTB is notifiable now, they are looking for it and will find more. But doesn't that put Meat Hygiene Officers firmly in their place? Haven't they always been 'looking for it' at abattoirs? Is it not what they are paid to do with all food animals? With domestic cats and dogs - Defra possibly have a point. And as we are nothing if not fair on this site, we 'll give them the benefit of the doubt on the spillover figures 2007 over 2006. But not the increase 2008 over 2007, to which the WMN report draws attention. Prior to 2006, veterinary surgeons would probably have hesitated to suggest another £100+ on top of hefty fees, to post mortem a casualty. And the single (only?) thing former minister Baby Ben Bradshaw achieved during his tenure astride Defra's fence, was to make badgerTB notifiable in all mammalian species, with postmortems paid for by his department.

The results of this increasing environmental contamination, we have covered over the years, seeing bTB cases expand from reservoir maintenance host and its messenger, into alpacas ,cats, goats and more cats. With many more casualties along the way, including this story from Farmers Guardian on badgerTB in free range pigs.

Will the last cow standing

.. turn out the lights. Further to our posting on the recently published work from York, and the flying teddies response from the Badger Trust, we read in the Western Morning News, Anthony Gibson's take on the paper.

Mr. Gibson is a former SW director of the NFU, and now a freelance agricultural journalist. The article has many good points - until he follows the line of the scientists who did this research which showed that 'boss' cows had more contact with badgers than those further down the pecking order. In order to use this seismic (to scientists, if not to cattle farmers) snip, the scientists, and to a certain degree, Anthony, have both tried to shoehorn this to a practical herd situation.

Their thoughts were along the lines of 'identify, separate and test the boss cows more frequently', and even segregate them in a (hermetically sealed?)building.

And what then?

As we have said, in any group of animals (or people for that matter), there is a leader. And if that leader is removed, then jockeying up the scale will be another one to take its place.. And another.

The boss calls it 'cognitive dissonance'. Which means that even if a policy of shooting the messenger doesn't work, by dispassionately carrying on regardless, sooner or later the problem is solved because all the messengers are dead.

We see a certain parallel here.

Because we need a laugh ...

... we will post the Badger Trust's hissy fit press release relating to the work which we linked to below where it was shown that contact between badgers and cattle was 'much closer' than originally thought (at least by scientists).

Study finds "no evidence" that badgers give TB to cattle, says Badger Trust

The Badger Trust strongly challenges claims by the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) that "TB could be passed from badgers to cattle" through contact between cattle and badgers in the field[1].

Would we expect anything less?

In a paper in an online journal [2], researchers explain how they used data logging equipment to record what they call "contact initiation" between cattle and badgers. On publication, lead researcher Mike Hutchings claimed in a resulting SAC press release that this contact is "a potentially significant area of disease transmission between the species".

It is.

But David Williams, chairman of Badger Trust, dismissed the claims: "The idea that badgers 'initiate contact' with cattle is just ludicrous. These claims are absurd and are not even supported by the researchers' own data. Their data loggers recorded a so-called 'contact' when badgers were around two metres away from cattle.

Nope, it was less than 'around 2m'. The transponders were set at 2m to initiate a contact log. But average contact distance was much less, and as far as I know these gadgets were around the necks of the candidates, not attached to the end of their noses. Thus the distance from the transponder to the 'aerosol opportunity' changes contact distance a lot. Estimate 2 feet for a holstein cow from the transponder around her neck to the end of her nose, and about a foot for a big boar badger ? That's almost a metre less than the average 1.46 recorded. And that's more than enough to splatter particularly if the there is a badger cough or spit aerosol propellant involved.

That's hardly 'contact': the badgers could have been on the other side of a hedge. And the researchers have conspicuously failed to explain how a badger, whose nose is just a few centimetres off the ground, could transmit bovine TB to a cow that is almost two metres tall and two metres away.

Small hedges then. Ours are 3 m wide at least, including protective back fences. And cattle have their heads 2m off the ground? Always? They never graze? Lie down? Drink? Are they stuffed? By Williams, Lawson and their fellow travellers. Yes.

"Around half of all so-called 'contacts' were for barely a second and the researchers even admit that this so-called 'contact' was 'relatively infrequent'. Indeed, over six months less than half the cattle were anywhere near a badger.

There aren't that many badgers in this area of Yorks.. Imagine the difference if the work had been done in the SW where we're falling over the bloody things.. It ain't quantity (except of bacteria) It's quality - as in how infectious are these creatures. If even one 'contact' had been from a super excreter and the cow had sniffed just 70 units of bacteria, then she's stuffed. A reactor.

"Of course, the study found that cattle are constantly close to one another, even though the equipment was turned down to intentionally minimise the number of cow to cow contacts that were recorded. Cow to cow - both within herds and between herds - is the obvious way in which bovine TB is spread and maintained and this study provides ample evidence for that transmission route.

Of course it is. And the earth is flat. This chestnut that cattle contact is a significant transmission opportunity totally contradicts VLA's spoligotype maps. (If a cow has developed lung lesions and is housed, that is the only exception.)

"The only interesting finding of this study, which confirms the well documented territorial behaviour of badgers, is that neighbouring social groups of badgers almost never came anywhere near one another.

Er, read it again. There was a lot of contact between the two groups in September, which is what we see at ground level. A huge amount of activity in autumn and spring.

It's the 'dispersers' that cause much of the trouble. Sick badgers excluded from their own clan, will travel further and encounter other groups. Bite wounding as territorial scrapping takes place is a documented route of disease transmission.
The idea that a badger group remains the same size even when sows have cubs every year and the group expands, and gets older (weaker) and young males fight for supremacy within the heirarchy, is 'Wind in the Willows' stuff.

This scotches the view promulgated by farming unions that bovine TB is spread between badger social groups rather than from herd to herd.
"This study simply confirms that cow to cow is the most likely route of bovine TB transmission and it provides no firm evidence that a single badger was ever close enough to a cow to infect it with bovine TB.".

And the fact that this hissy fit has exploded from the Badger Trust, gives Professor Hutchings work more credence.

A scientist says it - so it's official.

We have spoken many times including posts here and here on this site, from our own experiences of animal behaviour how routes of transmission can be overlooked by ignoring the obvious. If you scroll down, that posting has a photo of a young, pregnant dairy heifer sniffing a collie. Sniff: as in 'investigate', 'identify' and label friend or foe. That's what animals do. They use scent to identify each other and more importantly in the case of badgers, cattle and tuberculosis, they sniff other species too. And lick. And the most common scent vehicle is urine which is used to attract, repel, warn and mark territories.

It was thought that contact with the infected detritus of TB infected badgers was the main route of transmission opportunity for bTB, but research just published has shown that badgers had more and closer contact with cattle at grass, than with other badgers.
Western Morning News has a more readable version. This story also labels Defra's 'bio garbage' as 'futile'.

But having spent all this cash, and produced the seismic observation that badgers had closer and more frequent contact with cattle, and particularly high ranking 'boss' cattle, than each other, what do you suppose is the conclusion of the boffins at York University and Edinburgh SAC?

Yup, you got it - more cattle testing. So what do you do, test and shoot the dominant boss cow? And then what? Another takes its place. Yup, you shoot that too. Sheesh. Could that be applied to the hierarchy of 'scientists' we wonder? That was a rhetorical question by the way. The paper's conclusion is:

When considered alongside the heterogeneous pattern of cattle contact between farms, our results emphasise the potential benefits of more targeted cattle-bTB control regimes at both between- and within-farm levels. The current testing regimes recommended by Defra have failed to control bTB in cattle [26]. A higher frequency of bTB testing of highly connected markets and farms [17], combined with more frequent, targeted testing of dominant individuals within herds and a similarly targeted and therefore cost-effective application of any prospective cattle bTB vaccination programmes [52], [53], are likely to contribute to more effective and efficient strategies for controlling disease.

We are not sure just how more frequent than 60 day interval testing, the scientists envisage, but surely, that is missing the point?

Update:
Now we've had time to peruse this paper a little more closely, there are few gems worthy of 'quote' status - apart from the conclusion above. During the exercise, collars were attached to 13 cattle and 12 badgers (from two social groups) and data was logged if they had contact of more than 1 second;

" at an average contact initiation distance of 1.69±0.11 m and a contact termination distance of 2.74±0.12 m "

which is considerably less than the 3 - 4 m presumed by previous observations.

The results showed that a single badger (V59) had recordable contacts with 5 of the 13 cattle. Intergroup contact between the two badger social groups was recorded, mainly in September.

Six proximity data loggers (two badger loggers and four cattle loggers) recorded 103 and 32 inter-species interactions respectively (Tables 3 & 4). Overall, two Valley badgers and five cattle were implicated in inter-specific contacts, with the two badgers contacting all of the five cattle. All five cattle were in the top eight for CI rankings in cattle, with four out of the five amongst the top five.

So just two badgers recorded 103 inter species interactions? (Inter species = contact with cattle) and the authors reckon Defra should test the cattle more regularly? Mmmmm. Even though as they point out in the quote below, the badger /cattle contact was higher than between badgers or between cattle.

In multi-host disease systems, where a pathogen can infect more than one of the species present, host species may combine to form a joint host community in which a pathogen can persist, depending on the extent of inter-specific interaction [50]. In terms of direct contacts, the two hosts in our wildlife-livestock system were mainly decoupled from each other, although episodic inter-species contact rates recorded by badger loggers exceeded interaction rates between neighbouring social groups in badgers (Table 3). In populations with strong spacing patterns, such as those caused by territoriality, disease establishment and persistence may be highly dependent on comparatively more frequent inter-species transmission instead of intra-species transmission [2]. This appears to be the case for the Valley badger group in our badger-cattle system."

and finally,

Here, the daily contact frequency and duration were higher in badger-cattle interactions than Valley badger group interactions; the true difference may be even greater due to the lower power settings and hence lower sensitivity employed by the cattle loggers.

More sympathy. No change.

This week, recently appointed Minister for Waste and Recycling within Defra, Jane Kennedy MP, visited farms in North Somerset to meet farmers and vets who were directly affected by and involved with badgerTB.

She sought to reassure sceptical farmers that Defra is ‘absolutely committed’ to tackling bovine TB ...... but made it clear that Defra has no intention of following the Welsh approach of combining tighter cattle controls with a cull of badgers in the most infected areas.

Speaking to Farmers Guardian during the trip, Ms Kennedy said she wanted to hear about the impact of the disease on farm businesses and communities and ‘get a better understanding of what people on the ground believe would make a difference’.

But she acknowledged that her first task was to rebuild farmers’ confidence in Defra, which she admitted had ‘waned’ as a result of its bTB policy.

“Part of my role here is to seek to reassure farmers that we are absolutely committed to tackling this disease. It is not something we think farmers have to live with,” she said.

and added that

" when farmers see the plan we are working on with the TB Eradication Group it will rebuild their confidence in our commitment to tackling this disease.”

And that plan would be? Farmers undertaking wild animal veterinary practise, by vaccinating badgers endemically infected with tuberculosis, with errr, a vaccine for tuberculosis.

She said Defra was ‘working hard’ to bring forward alternative ways of controlling disease in badgers, primarily through an injectable vaccine that is due to be deployed next year. However, she admitted it would ‘take a number of years before we see any impact of that’.

Now far be it from us to rain on Ms. Kennedy's parade, but veterinary opinion on this idea is from two points of the spectrum. One view is that BCG is an unpredictable product and that combined with the inefficiency of cage traps would indicate that even if used as a firebreak, in areas of relatively healthy bagers, any benefit would take a long time to filter through. As in decades. And in 'firebreaks' the minister is not interested.

But in areas where the badgers are already heavily infected with tuberculosis (and these are precisely the zones in which Ms. Kennedy proposes farmers attempt to collect, cage trap, mark and jab them ) then the stress of this operation may quite quickly blow an 'infected' candidate into full blown 'infectious' status, thus making a bad situation a whole lot worse. And it can get worse than 2008's tally of 40,000 dead cattle and almost 10 percent of farms having restrictions during the year, as we showed here.

But the point is that no one really knows what will happen. Least of all the people at VLA who are steering the whole thing. Pragmatically, they collect their salaries and follow their master's voice. It is not for Defra employees to pass judgement - even on such schemes as superficially daft as this one.

The final word on the minister for Waste and Recycling's visit goes to the NFU's South West spokesman Ian Johnson, who commented that:

"Farmers were grateful the Minister was visiting the region for a second time to discuss bTB. But the reality is we are no closer to a solution and no amount of listening and sympathy can make up for that.”

Another prolonged wringing of ministerial hands then. And no change in non-policy. And inevitably, more 'waste' for which this junior minister, and her boss are entirely responsible, and for which the industry will ultimately pay.

TB Free

Before you all get excited, this is not GB we are talking about but New Zealand.
They have a website where their graph of eradication progress is in striking contrast to ours.


Their aim they say, is by 2013, to reach the international (OIE)standard for TB free trading status.

The international standard for TB freedom is reached when 99.8% of domestic cattle and deer herds have been free of bovine TB for three years. This figure has been set by the Office Internationale Epizooties (World Organisation for Animal Health).

And to achieve this, the problem is tackled in the round.
The TB control programme in New Zealand is guided by the National Pest Management Strategy for Bovine TB (NPMS). It is managed by the Animal Health Board under the programme name "TBfree New Zealand".

The programme works on two fronts:

* Disease control - aiming to control and contain the spread of the disease within cattle and deer herds
* Vector control - aiming to control and contain the wild animal species mostly responsible for spreading the disease to cattle and deer.

Please read the last bit of that again. "Aiming to control and contain the wild animal species resposible for spreading disease to cattle and deer."

So what do we do here in the UK?

The boss was in snarl mode this morning and most eloquently described Defra's non existent 'vector control', and its counter productive result thus:

" By killing cattle who have had a slight reaction to the skin test,(IRs) Defra are destroying the natural immunity of the national herd to infection from an untouched wildlife host. And by keeping that wildlife host intact, they are providing a constant supply of fresh victims, with absolutely no natural immunity, thus perpetuating the problem."

Defra may seek to turn New Zealand's map upside down, and persuade themselves that in fact their TB incidence is heading the same way as ours. But it is not. They are within touching distance of becoming officially TB Free. And by the time they are, the numbers of cattle slaughtered in GB will have almost doubled from the 2008 pyre.

Vaccination - a farmer's reaction

An excellent overview of Benn's latest idea prevarication can be found in the Farmers Weekly this week.

Stephen Carr from East Sussex has suckler cows. A lot of suckler cows. And comments that after almost five years of continuous testing his herd, he has:

.....become the most efficient operator of a cattle crush in the UK, to the point that it feels like an extension of my arms. I can also read a cow ear-tag from 30 yards standing on my head and spot a bump, that might suggest a "positive" reactor, on a cow's neck from half a mile away. But another skill is apparently to be added to the list of my highly-developed TB farming skills. As the full extent of the bovine TB crisis that is sweeping across the UK becomes apparent DEFRA secretary Hilary Benn has announced that farmers may be trained as trappers "to handle and inject" badgers as part of a project to test a TB vaccine.

We gave our reaction to this little gem time waster, splendidly illustrated with Ken Wignall's cartoon, in our posting here. By the way, nobody has explained how trapped, vaccinated badgers are to be marked - yet.

But we digress. This is serious stuff. And Mr. Carr is very serious about his impending leap into the realms of wild animal veterinary practice. After reminding readers of the huge rise in tested, sentinel and slaughtered cattle in 2008, which shows no sign of abating in 2009 and may hit the mid 70,000 annually by 2014, he describes his new found employment camouflage gear thus:

I have already sourced my raccoon hat, suede shirt, trousers and moccasins. Not an evening goes by where I am not to be found crawling through the undergrowth and putting an expert ear to the ground.

And concludes:

Mr Benn, who, despite the science, has turned his face against a badger cull for reasons of adverse public reaction, now describes the injectable vaccine project as "a vital step in the development of an oral vaccine which will be suited for large-scale treatment". This smacks of desperate policy-making on the hoof and of a need to be be seen to be doing something to quieten farmers down..

Describing his new job description, and the veterinary clothing requirement Stephen Carr concludes

"No futile gesture is too much trouble provided it helps get a politician out of a difficulty of his own making."

We couldn't have put it better ourselves.

"Bovine TB - A Way forward."

We have spoken many times of our distress, seeing the effect of endemic tuberculosis on the badger population. A professional photographer, has also seen on his own doorstep that effect and is making a film of it.

Devon photographer, Chris Chapman whose work in 2001 so successfully highlighted the tragedy of foot and mouth, is working on a film about the present bovine TB crisis. £3000 has been already raised towards a target of £12000 - and he has begun filming. He writes,

"We are in a TB hotspot here on the edge of Dartmoor and not far from my house is a huge old badger sett which we know has very sick animals...It seems utter madness to me that this can be allowed to continue - no decent farmer would let his animals suffer in this way and yet we have legislation in place that prolongs suffering in wildlife. ...
We have good vets on board willing to speak, and a retired bacteriologist who will speak about vaccination (without being gagged!).."

From the press release:

"Bovine TB - A Way Forward will highlight the current anomaly whereby vets and farmers, under present legislation, are unable to take control of the crisis. The film will cover as many viewpoints, suggestions and arguments as is possible and will offer a positive way forward for both farmers and the public to understand the interaction between cattle and badgers and the need to identify and accommodate healthy 'green' badgers..
.... I've never been a political animal with my camera, but I do believe in highlighting the issues from the grass roots, especially when the people on the ground offer sensible solutions to a problem.
Bovine TB - A Way Forward is a not for profit film and is being made with the help of sponsorship from business, the farming industry and private individuals. Its target for the complete production will exceed £12000 and to date over £3000 has been raised..."

If you would like to contribute, and are interested in further details, please contact Chris Chapman direct on 01647 231508 or by email: chapman88@btinternet.com for an information pack.
Chris would be grateful to receive contributions - however small - from anyone with an interest in what he is doing.

All Fools Day ruling

Today, April 1st, the Court of Appeal ruled against the NFU's challenge to Defra's tabular valuation system, brought last year on behalf of several farmers, but headed by David Partridge.

Handing down the appeal judgment, Lord Justice Lawrence Collins admitted his colleague in the initial case had ‘delivered a comprehensive and careful judgment’ but ruled that there was no discrimination in Defra’s approach to the valuation of high value animals.

He said: “I accept the Secretary of State’s submission that the true value of any animal once it has tested positive for TB is the salvage value of its carcass.

'The salvage value of its carcass' ? Hmmm. If that is the case, tabular valuation could go lower. Much lower. One wonders whether the learned judge would have formed the same opinion had the sentinel victim of Defra's non-policy on bTB, been his own animal? Carcass value, and him powerless to prevent a repeat performance? Farmers Guardian has the story.

The NFU, which backed the case, said it was deeply disappointed at the outcome and would now be considering the next stage in the legal process.

This could involve an appeal at the House of Lords which could yet overturn the Court of Appeal’s decision. More here

Meanwhile, during March another anomaly raised its head on those infamous tables. Once again, as we reported a year ago the 'value' of a non-pedigree dairy cow, over 36 months, outstripped her pedigree herd mate by £110. April tables can be seen here and still show a £62 advantage for leaving your pride pedigree certificate in the filing cabinet.

Welsh announce a badger cull

As English farmers are being invited to diversify into wild animal veterinary practice, and vaccinate badgers endemically infected with tuberculosis, with a vaccine for, errr, tuberculosis, the Wesh Assembly has announced a cull of infected badgers.

Last year the Minister announced her intention to implement a comprehensive, practical and proportionate programme of action in order to tackle the disease. Since that statement, the number of cattle slaughtered due to TB has continued to increase. In 2008 over 12,000 cattle were slaughtered in Wales: 52 per cent more than in 2007, with associated rises in costs. The Welsh Assembly Government believes that this acceleration in incidence is unacceptable and unsustainable.

Speaking at the National Assembly for Wales the Rural Affairs Minister, Elin Jones said,

“There have been attempts over many years to control this disease and they have failed. Each member state is however obliged under an EU Directive to develop an eradication programme in order to “accelerate, intensify or carry through” the eradication of the disease.

.
After describing a programme to test every herd in Wales and its progress, she continued:

“There is no point, however, tackling one source of infection only to ignore another. This only allows the infection to return. I want to see a Welsh livestock and Welsh wildlife co-existing in a disease free environment.”

Don't we all?

The cull area described by the Welsh Assembly, is likely to be in the Pembroke area, which has already seen cattle carnage on a vast scale, after years of a steady, pernicious and expenisive drip feed of recycled 'environmental' infection.

As the minister says,

" There is no point in tackling one source of infection, only to ignore the other."

Precisely.

Waiting in line...

We are grateful to cartoonist Ken Wignall for permission to reproduce his work, first published in Farmers Guardian 21st March. Succinct and hugely entertaining, the cartoon of badgers waiting in line at a Defra TB Vaccination Centre had us in stitches. The whole idea of vaccinating wild badgers, endemically infected with tuberculosis with a tuberculosis vaccine, has us in stitches, but let that pass.


The guy with the needle wouldn't be our Trevor, would it? Or are the Badger Trust not involved in this charade? And the redhead with the clip file? Our former Minister of (some) Animal Health, Margaret Beckett, no less. Obviously totting up potential votes that this little time waster may glean for the next election.

We are not against vaccination per se. But in this case, with this vaccine (BCG), to be used in half a dozen 'trial areas' set in areas of endemic infection and administered by farmers 'trained' to capture and jab badgers? Sheeesh.
A scientific colleague with vast epidemiological experience commented on the announcement:

"The best that can be hoped for from the latest announcement by DEFRA of their plan [for farmers] to vaccinate badgers with BCG is that will do no harm and not make matters worse. Since the likelihood of a less than reliable vaccine such as BCG being effective in the face of the massive challenge from naturally infected badgers in the field seems highly improbable.

However the cynical will observe that, like the Randomised Badger Culling Trials, it buys the Government 5 more years of prevarication (or at least until they are thrown out of office) when they can pretend they are doing something to stem this wretched disease that is out of control in large parts of the country.

The graphs on our posting below, illustrates how this Government has allowed the problem to escalate since they took office in 1997.

Defra scientists have been fiddling with BCG jabs for decades. It is a very uncertain vaccine, with, we understand, efficacy of around 75 per cent (range 10 - 85) and that when used on an uninfected candidate. Wild badgers are to be cage trapped, and remembering - how could we forget? - the chaos in achieving a meaningful scoop during the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial, what is the level of capture and vaccination expected for this little lot? And what is the result of vaccinating a badger already infected with tuberculosis, but not necessarily shedding bacteria? Stress alone is likely to blow that status to infectious, and the result of that on surrounding cattle herds would be disastrous.

Trapping is usually done over a period of weeks to mop up trap-shy individuals; or just 8 nights if you were part of the hit-and-run visits by the RBCT. So how are badgers caught on day one to be identified and marked to avoid be jabbed twice? Or three times? Double eartags, a holding number and database? Luminous paint? Microchips? A clipped ear? Chopped tail? Rather you than me.

Polite message to the Right Honourable Hilary Benn, who thinks this is a brilliant idea. When you do one, we'll be right behind you..

Who dreamed up all this? Hilary Benn is advised not by veterinary professionals, with field experience of infectious diseases and their control but by this chap. Now forgive any lapse of memory here, but his CV mentions NASA? Wasn't it this organisation that muddled imperial measurements and metric and buggered up a space probe, costing $billions? And when the NASA modellers were ousted found other gainful employment, did not many move to the financial sector?

Our new Chief Scientific Advisor lists on his not inconsiderable CV 'The World Bank'. And is it not such financial institutions, hell bent on bonus-driven pyramid selling of unsustainable debt, repackaged to disguise its contents and modelled to appear AAA sound, that has brought the world to the brink of recession? And then that noveau religion, climate change, and its ability to hoover up cash that might otherwise appear as 'taxes' in a government balance sheet. All appear on the Professor's past achievements as does 'Global Bio Deversity Assessment'. But not one word about the control of infectious diseases, which some may think is a little odd.

So, will the badgers come to call and stand in line for their jabs? Our Chief Scientific Adviser obviously thinks that they will. Job done then.

2008 - Another stunning achievement.

Defra figures for TB incidence in GB during 2008 were posted this week. A stunning achievement we're sure you'll agree; to take all the hard work and cost of the 1950s and 1960s eradication policies (and some follow up strategies) to clear out the disease and then turn 'science' upside down, must rank as one of the most expensive and recklessly stupid things achieved by any government. (Leaving aside their current preoccupation with the inevitable result of the pyramid selling of unserviceable debt of course)


Our graph shows cattle slaughtered from 1978 - 2008 and the various policies under which TB eradication was attempted. The final figure for 2008 by the way, is 39,973 - an increase of 42% on 2007.

A thumbnail recap on past policies, and their success / failure is also shown in VAWM's Tb Events page. Briefly, working inland from the coasts during the 1950s and 60s during what was known as the 'TB Eradication' strategy, every cattle herd was tested, and reactors slaughtered. It was assumed that cattle with walled up lesions would continue to present at slaughter, or as occasional reactors for a decade or so, by which time the country would be declared TB free.

But in a few areas, reactor numbers remained stubbornly high. Both in the SW of Cornwall, and Ireland brutal and intense cattle measures - much like the ISG has proposed - failed utterly to reduce TB incidence.

A wildlife reservoir in badgers was confirmed in the early 1970s, and only when these infected setts were removed, did TB incidence in surrounding cattle herds drop. The low point was just prior to the 'Clean ring' strategy of the early 1980s when Lord Zuckerman observed in his report of 1980:

"The basic and incontrovertible fact is that TB in badgers is now (1980) a significant second reservoir of the disease in parts of the South West, dangerous for badgers and cattle alike. Given the policy of government to suppress bovine TB the disease cannot be allowed to spread in the badger population. I cannot therefore see any reason for continuing the moratorium on the campaign to eliminate tuberculous badgers".

Despite this, gassing was stopped on welfare grounds, although it is still authorised for other varieties of animal 'miners' and cage traps were introduced. An excellent idea. All trussed up in a neat carrier, the occupant can't bite and can be shifted with ease - anywhere. A little TB takeaway.

During the 1980s, from a low of 638 cattle slaughtered and about seven years of numbers under 1000, but in the face of increasing activity by 'animal rights' protesters and the National Federation of Badger Groups, a further report was produced. This one by Professor Dunnett. Like his predecessor Lord Zuckerman, Dunnett accepted the role of badgers in the transmission of tuberculosis, however during his 'Interim Strategy', the Ministry responsible (MAFF)had its respective arms tied even more tightly. Land available to cage trappers was severely reduced from 7km down to just 1km and they were only allowed on land which reactor cattle had grazed. Setts on arable land, forestry or a neighbouring farm were out of bounds to the trappers - if not to the badgers.

The inevitable result was a steady increase in diseased badgers, and their consequent effect on TB incidence in cattle. From 782 cattle slaughtered in 1988 the number had increased to 6,083 a decade later.

And so to the Bourne conspiracy and the ISG's 'simple mathematical model' driven ten year Badger Dispersal exercise. So that 'his' cull areas could be properly evaluated, Bourne insisted on a 'no culling' policy outside them. And to placate the diminutive professor, in 1997, government bent the law of the land in the form of a moratorium on a section of the Protection of Badgers Act which deals with culling to 'prevent the spread of disease'.

"It is current policy not to issue any licenses under sub-section 10(2)a [of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992] to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis, except for animals held in captivity" Hansard 18th March 2004 [ 158605]

So replied Baby-Ben Bradshaw in answer to PQs on the subject.

So what is the result? In a word, carnage. Appalling, expensive, avoidable carnage.
From that low point (1986) just two decades ago, when 638 cattle were slaughtered and less than 100 herds under restriction, successive lobby pandering by governments has walked this country into a situation where taxpayers are forking out for an 'growth industry' worth £billions. A gravy train of misery for farmers snarled up in it, but which its beneficiaries are loathe to give up on. And the badgers? Sick,diseased and dying, having spilled the detritus of disease into several other mammals with the risk of onwards and upwards transmission into humans. But hey, the NFBG has now morphed into the Badger Trust and expanded its operations four fold. Did we say beneficial crisis? You bet.

Last year was the worst on record - and far worse than during the eradication clearances of 1950s. Defra have presided over a one sided policy which has hoovered up just short of 40,000 cattle during 2008, has snarled up 7,928 herds - and shows no sign of slowing down. Why would it? With lousy, grey, wet summers and major floods last year throughout the South West and particularly Gloucestershire, should we be at all surprised that herd breakdowns are running at 24 percent over 2007, and cattle slaughterings at up 50 percent in some areas. Herds remain snarled up in cattle restrictions but open to constant badger reinfection from an overpopulated, endemically infected and weather stressed population.

Ironically the only patches in the south west to have shown a drop in TB incidence during 2008 are the RBCT Dispersal Trial cull areas, where after a few years of struggle, the WLU actually managed to catch a few badgers. ISG data has been topped up with a report, which detailed a 60 per cent reduction in TB incidence.

* (Strangely, Defra seem loathe to show us the county figures for the West region for 2008. Perhaps they cannot believe their eyes. They should. However, the GB total and a calculator shows an extra 237 herds affected in December, and almost 2000 cattle slaughtered in the nine counties which comprise Defra's 'West' area. When they finally get around to posting December's stats instead of those for November, we'll work out the increase in each county.)

So what for the future? Our minister for (some) Animal Health, the Right Honourable Hilary Benn MP, has put all his eggs in the vaccination basket, along with £20million, with more to come. Will it work? Who knows. The earliest date that Defra reasonably expect a vaccine to be available and cleared through its regulatory hoops is 2014, which we shall call 'VE' day. (Vaccination Expected) Prior to that, a few 'pilot' areas are expected to be volunteered, where badgers endemically infected with tuberculosis, will be - err, vaccinated against tuberculosis.


But a 'trend line' on our graph of cattle casualties up to 2014 when we are told a vaccine may be available, is not a pretty sight. We won't say 'we told you so'. We would much rather have said "We are glad not to have to say 'we told you so'". The Parliamentary Questions which form the bedrock of this site predicted this insanity, the epidemiological data on the disease in badgers, so painstakingly extracted from Defra and VLA, told us and the contributers who so confidently kept to Ministry bio-garbage guidelines and found to their considerable cost that it had not the slightest effect on disease incidence, also told us.

So we are not in the least surprised.

Wipe out

An update to our posting on the carnage achieved in one test at Trioni farms, in SW Wales.

After a sweep with Defra's favourite toy, the notorious gammaIFN, as Mr. Harris was warned, the remainder of his cattle have been hoovered up and slaughtered.

By Friday 13th February, there was not a cow left standing on the farm.

The full story, can be seen here.

Stats made clear

A contributer to the site has come across a little gem which we felt deserved a wider audience.

It is a well put together snapshot of wasted cash, wasted opportunity and political prevarication on a grand scale as shown by statistics gleaned from many and various government agencies, particularly over the last ten years.

Some good pictures of the effect of tuberculosis on the poor old badgers too.

ASA dismisses 4 out of 5 claims

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has summarily dismissed 4 out 5 claims brought by the Badger Trust, Viva and others, in response to the NFU advert shown in the press last year.

After Hilary Benn's "well it might work, but then again it might not" prevarication over badger culling, the NFU ran a series of adverts in the National and regional press last summer featuring an image of a dead cow. The headline read: "She needed indecision on TB like she needed a hole in the head”. Further text at the bottom of the page explained:

"In 2007, 28,000 cattle were lost to TB. This year that figure will be closer to 40,000 unless action is taken to eradicate TB from infected badgers. It's time to take the politics out of animal disease control. Please support our call for positive action on bovine TB, including the appointment of a separate animal health body that makes decisions based on scientific facts, not sentimentality.

The advert drew complaints from Viva, the Badger Trust and members of the public who claimed it was misleading. Today the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) delivered its decision. Four of the five complaints against the advert have not been upheld, with one complaint upheld.

The complaint that has been upheld relates to a challenge that our advert implied that badgers were solely responsible for the spread of Bovine TB.

So, the ASA were happy with quoted 28,000 dead cattle, a figure spiralling to almost 40,000 in 2008? Yup, they were.
"Time to take the politics out of animal disease control"? Can't argue with that. They shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Separate 'animal health' body - rather than one which puts one animal's lack of health above all others? Fine with us.
So, where does the advert say the almost 40,000 cattle will be dead because of badgers? No-where that we can see, but the advert does say that 40,000 cattle will be dead if action isn't taken to eradicate the disease from infected badgers.

And no action was taken. The moratorium remains, and the figure for slaughtered cattle will be approximately 38,000 in 2008. So the point is?

We are pleased to post the NFU response to the ASA decision.

NFU RESPONSE FOR PRESS:
“Clearly we are disappointed that the ASA has upheld this complaint, because, the NFU has never said, nor does it believe, that badgers are solely responsible for the spread of bovine TB. However, it is abundantly clear that there is a reservoir of TB in badgers and that unless the level of infection in badgers is addressed we will continue to see increases in the numbers of new cases of bovine TB and continued re-infection of existing TB affected herds.

Defra's own prediction is incidence of TB in cattle doubling every four and a half years, in the absence of any 'new dynmanics' - by which they mean culling infectious badgers. The press release continues:

“We acknowledge that TB can be spread by other means such as cattle movements. However, we are convinced that if we are to eradicate bovine TB then we have to tackle all sources of infection. Regrettably, we are currently trying to control TB with at least one arm tied behind our back and the result is that we are seeing increases in new incidences of bovine TB and the government is likely to have slaughtered close to 40,000 cattle last year, 12,000 more than the previous year because of TB.

And concludes:

“Our advert was intended to highlight the tragic impact that TB is having on our cattle industry and the farmers and their families that have to live with TB day in, day out whilst the Government stands by and refuses to tackle one of the major sources of the infection. The NFU will not give up its fight to see TB eradicated and unlike the government we will not give up on thousands of farmers and their families that lives and businesses are being devastated by TB.”

Mike Thomas
Press & PR Officer
National Farmers' Union
Stoneleigh Park
Warwickshire, CV8 2TZ




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another passenger...

Even in the depths of a multi $trillion recession, there is no end of the ability of our Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to waste spend taxpayers' money.

Latest to benefit from DEFRA's largesse, is the University of Reading's Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit (VEERU). The department is carrying out some online research under project title No SE3253, to try to discover:

"descriptive information which may not have been recorded previously, in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the [bTB] outbreaks and possible risk factors".

Reading's Keith Allison hopes that anyone affected may be kind enough to devote between fifteen to twenty minutes on ticking boxes - "more if you want to add 'free text' comments, but that is optional," he explains.

Kind enough? Sheesh. Another university expressing 'gratitude' for my time - while putting a bill into the taxpayer for its own? Sounds about right.

The survey is open to anyone involved in badger Tuberculosis: farmers veterinarians and others, with experience of the disease since 1980, and can be accessed here. It begins:

Welcome to the VEERU on-line confidential consultation with veterinary surgeons, farmers and others with practical field experience of bovine TB (bTB) in England since 1980.

Your input is very valuable for this project and will help guide future prevention and control policy.
You will not be identifiable from the information you provide.
You will have the option to provide your email if you would like feed back, or are willing to be contacted by VEERU researchers for further discussion on particular issues that you may raise.

The amount of passengers, beneficiaries of this catastrophic and totally avoidable crisis, show no sign of alighting from Defras' gravy train.

2009 - An excellent start

Just two decades ago, in the mid 1980s, after a TB eradication programme involving an inward sweep from the coasts ending in the north midlands, GB had less than 100 herds under TB restrictions and slaughtered just over 600 cattle.

Last week, that number were slaughtered on one farm alone, making this arguably the largest number of cattle taken in one 'hit' from a GB farm.

Over the last few years, Trioni farms in Pembrokeshire has developed a thriving
business turning organic milk from its 390 dairy cows into flavoured milks and yogurts sold under the 'Daioni' label. At a TB test in May, six reactors and a handful of inconclusives were found and slaughtered. Things were getting better after a few years of continuous TB restriction. But a test in early December revealed that most of the young stock, reared and fed outside, were reactors to the skin test.

150 autumn born calves and 78 others have all been destroyed.

As the tests were applied to the milking herd, the Harris family feared the worst, and two weeks before Christmas, test results revealed another 220 reactors and 120 inconclusives out of the adult cattle.

Despite pleas to valuers, Welsh Assembly, Soil Association and abattoirs - and indeed anyone else who were willing to stir their respective backsides over the Christmas shut down, the process clanked on - until January 7th., when the first 130 cattle were loaded up for slaughter. (Farmers Guardian report)

The Harris family were contacted by several organisations and individuals - most to offer sympathy and support. And by the Environment Agency and others of that ilk, to ensure that the milk from the reactor cattle, now isolated awaiting slaughter but still in need of TLC and milking for weeks, was being disposed of in a manner prescribed by The Law.

But after the first days' carnage of the adult cattle, the local AHO changed its mind and informed Mr. Harris that some of the consigned inconclusives need not have been slaughtered after all. Well that's a relief then. 46 need not have been shot. But the reprieve may be shortlived. The remaining cattle will be subject to Defra's toy-box favourite, gammaIFN. So it is highly likely that Mr. Harris and his family will have very few, if any, cattle left by the end of January 2009.

As we said at the beginning of this post, the Trioni cattle were of organic status, which should, according to a badger lobby website, have protected them from TB.

"Some commentators have suggested that organically-raised cattle have an exceptionally low incidence of TB infections. Very little research has proven this to be the case in the UK, but there is some evidence that organic cattle in countries where TB is endemic appear to have a high resistance towards the disease. This, and the possibility of getting higher prices for stock sales, should be a factor to consider if you were considering going 100% organic or moving towards more organic methods.

While we appreciate the attempts of the badger lobby to 'reduce the risks' for our cattle, we would remind them of this outbreak in 'TB resistant organic cattle':
563 organic cattle dead? Another batch to run the gauntlet of gammaIFN? This one sweep probably the worst single hit outbreak in GB history? And within an established, predominantly home bred and regularly tested organic herd ? An excellent start to the New Year to all concerned with the welfare of GB's cattle.

Our sympathies go to the Harris family.

It is 'apocryphal evidence' - ignore it.

Just occasionally something comes under our radar which lifts the spirits. And before our readers think that from this post's title, we have ventured into the realms of Greek mythology, we will explain.

Last week's Farmers Guardian carried a scathing, sarcastic but totally delicious letter from David Williams, chairman of the Badger Trust, attacking Lord Rooker. There is no web-link, so we will quote in full:

"The Badger Trust was astonished to read Lord Rooker's claim that the RBCT results could have just as easily been used to show badger culling worked'. (FG December 4th)

We had no idea Lord Rooker was so adept at analysing complex epidemiological data. We trust he will now publish his own analysis in a peer-reviewed journal, just to show how easy such an interpretation is. We doubt that he will do so however.

Lord Rooker appears to select evidence which best suits his view, rather than evidence that is most robust. Only last year, for example, he told the EFRA Select committee '70 per cent of the breakdowns are attributable to badger to cattle transmission'.

This was a divisive claim which totally contradicted the evidence gathered by the ISG.

Using the Freedom of Information Act , we obtained the 'evidence' Animal Health used to produce the 70 per cent figure. It is a painfully simple spreadsheet, adding up how often state vets blamed badgers for an outbreak.

Lord Rooker appeared to have judged this good enough to base a policy on"

David Williams
Chairman
Badger Trust.

We have spoken of this 'robust evidence' , many times, indeed many of us contributed long hours, completing under veterinary supervision, the TB99 forms which dealt with the reasons which could be responsible for our TB breakdowns. Completion of the forms for the ISG took about four hours, as they were more detailed than the usual epidemiological assessment which has been completed at every breakdown, for decades. This has a tick box list of possibilities, with bought in cattle, common boundaries and cattle contact, shared mechanical equipment etc. among the table together with badgers, other wildlife and residual infection. The possibilities are 'High', 'Low' or 'Nil'.

The personnel completing these forms, and the TB99s for the RBCT, are highly trained veterinary practitioners, with back up support for the data from government agencies such at the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS), Cattle Tracing Service (CTS), Ordnance Survey office and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).

So it was a wasteful, arrogant, disgrace disappointing to realise that far from actually using the 'robust, complex, epidemiological data', described by David Williams as having been 'gathered by the ISG', they chose to ignore it.

Within the section concerning the spread of tuberculosis in cattle, the ISG describe their epidemiological base, stating that they included:

"........ local infection across farm borders, infection from animals bought, in particular but not only, from high incidence areas and infection from wildlife, especially badgers. [] In the following calculations, we assume all three sources to be roughly equally important." (ISG 7.24 p148)

So, far from using that robust, complex epidemiological data contained in the TB99 forms to actually see what was going on, the ISG 'roughly assumed' two parts cattle, one part badger, pumped that into a mathematical abacus and switched on.

We understand that Professor Bourne went so far as to describe such epidemiological evidence, so confidently described by David Williams as 'robust' and 'complex', as 'apocryphal' - e.g of dubious provenance, not considered genuine, or of dubious authenticity. We're sure that the government agencies who took part in its 'gathering', are going to love that.

The ISG preferred it would appear, to assume and 'roughly estimate' disease transmission opportunity, and base their calculations of its spread and control on that.

The 'Disease Investigation Reports', about which the diminutive professor was so derisory, but which David Williams assumes were the basis for the ISG report and its conclusions, are analysed by the Epidemiology Unit at VLA Weybridge. But if ploughing through many words is too onerous, the following pictures (charts) are worth a thousand of them.




They are taken from a paper presented to the BCVA Congress held in Killarney last month, whose authors describe the basis of the RBCT and compare its mathematical modelling input with the actual 'complex epidemiological data' gathered over decades and held by VLA and some Animal Health offices in the SW.

This shows that from 1986 - 1995 analyses of data held by the Epidemiology Unit, Weybridge, approximately 90% of new herd incidents were considered to be of badger origin. (MAFF 1995, Clifton-Hadley 1995), so Lord Rooker's evidence was if anything, understated.

The paper concludes:

"The apparently arbitrary assumption of origins in the ISG model, are likely to have resulted in a serious distortion of the disease model. Giving equal weighting to cattle to cattle transmission, contiguous spread, and diseased badgers as sources of outbreaks seems a remarkable and disturbing assumption which was based only on concern that the ISG was unable to determine which proportions of the outbreaks were due to which source.

We are grateful for permission to publish the charts ahead of publication of this paper.

Tightening up

As Wales pioneers a closing of its TB eradication circle, it has wildlife still firmly in the frame. But a tightening up of cattle test interpretation has begun.

After the eradication sweeps of the 50s and 60s, as herds were cleared of reactors and more importantly, remained clear, testing was relaxed to reflect risk. And from annual tests, parishes entered a bureaucratic disease lottery of testing sequence. Depending on the prevalence of cattle reactors, parish and herd testing ranged from every 60 days to once in four years.

Over the last ten years, after badger control in response to outbreaks ceased, the number of reactors has rocketed, meaning the number of parishes hoovered up into annual testing (and thus preMT) has increased dramatically. But test interpretation has not altered - until now. Wales are reducing the number of tests an animal giving an 'inconclusive' result can have. Farmers Guardian has the story.

This is falling into line with European advice. And the previous three 'inconclusive' strikes, having been reduced in England to two, becomes just a single re-test in the Principality who are undertaking an annual sweep of all herd tests.

A comment on the posting below, firmly opining that 'of course cattle give TB to badgers and other mammals', has gained credence with the chatterati (as our partner labels such empty vessels with less than a single collective brain cell between them.) Thus we remind readers of previous expensive and ineffective cattle carnage under Liam Downie in Ireland and William Tait in West Cornwall. And reiterate the minister's reply to PQs about the total success of the Thornbury badger clearance:

"No confirmed cases of tuberculosis in cattle in the area were disclosed by the tuberculin test the the ten year period following the cessation of gassing" [150573]

Why would that be, we asked? Anything else done? Biosecurity? Extra cattle measures? Pre movement testing? Nope. The answer:

" The fundamental difference between the Thornbury area and other areas [] where bovine tuberculosis was a problem, was the systematic removal of badgers from the Thornbury area. No other species was similarly removed. No other contemporaneous change was identified that could have accounted for the reduction in TB incidence within the area" [157949]

Tightening up cattle controls will only work if wildlife reservoirs are addressed simultaneously, and arguably current cattle controls are more than adequate (annual testing and double fenced boundaries), provided the maintenance hosts of tuberculosis are removed.

And if they are not, then no amount of cattle testing or culling will work.
Defra have posted at new figures to August, reinforcing our point.