According to the BBC's "Badger Culling: Questions and Answers"
In briefings in May, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said this could include limited culling in "hot-spots". But Agriculture Minister James Paice took a considerably stronger line, telling farmers: "We will do it - it is an absolute pledge".
Opponents have asked how small-scale targeted culls can be "science-based" when the Krebs Trial conclusions indicate that only large-scale culls can produce a positive impact. Ms Spelman says the situation has changed since 2005, when the Krebs Trial concluded.
I wanted to know how "the situation has changed", so I sent a Freedom of Information request to DEFRA (as always using the wonderful WhatDoTheyKnow) to find out.
They replied:
Thank you for your email of 8 June about badger culling as a measure to control the spread of bovine TB.
The Coalition has committed that, as part of a package of measures, we will introduce a carefully-managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine TB.???
Since the end of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), regular (6 monthly) monitoring has continued in the proactively culled and survey-only areas. Two scientific papers reporting the results of these post-trial analyses have been published:
1) Jenkins, HE., Woodroffe, R., Donnelly, CA, 2008. The effects of annual widespread badger culls on cattle tuberculosis following the cessation of culling. International Journal of Infectious Disease 12: 457-465.
2) Jenkins, HE., Woodroffe, R., Donnelly, CA, 2010. The duration of the effects of repeated widespread badger culls on cattle tuberculosis following the cessation of culling. PLoS ONE. 5(2):e9090, DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0009090
The Government will need to consider all the issues carefully, including the scientific evidence, to work out the detail of the package to ensure it is right. Vaccine and culling options will be looked at as part of that package.
That penultimate sentence stuck me as rather odd:
The Government will need to consider all the issues carefully, including the scientific evidence, to work out the detail of the package to ensure it is right.
Surely for a subject like this the scientific evidence is the main consideration? Are the measures to control the spread of TB are based on what will sound good in rural constituencies rather than what will work? That seems crazy to me. A hugely expensive sort of crazy too at £2,830 per badger (according to the Welsh Assembly figures quoted on the BBC article linked above).
Still, that's politics for you. However, not being a politician I had a little look at the evidence to which DEFRA had referred. The most recent of the studies was published this year. In the conclusion the authors state:
Our findings show that the reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after culling ended and did not offset the financial costs of culling. These results, combined with evaluation of alternative culling methods, suggest that badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB in Britain.
Oh yes, definitely worth doing then. In fairness the earlier study did show some value to the cull but it needed further work to see how long the effect lasted, which was provided by the second study.
The UK Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (the Krebs Trial mentioned above)
The UK Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (the Krebs Trial mentioned above)
- ...concluded that "reactive culling" (killing badgers in response to a TB outbreak in cattle) makes the problem worse, producing an increase in infections in cattle.
But things have changed since then. Now we know that
...badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB in Britain.
Hopefully the Agriculture Minister will do the right thing and follow the evidence.
Why, after 50 years of using the same onerous, unreliable, time consuming bTB testing procedures, is there still no vaccination programme for cattle? Have too many resources gone into the badger/cattle link? A cull of badgers is not proven to be cost effective – surely a vital requirement in these days of financial restraint? Culls are also publicly unacceptable (consider the growing opposition to the Pembrokeshire cull) and will farmers be blamed? See www.bovinetb.co.uk for many other unanswered questions about the existing eradication policy.
ReplyDeleteI understand there is a BCG vaccine available now for cattle which offers reasonable protection and is particularly effective for calves. The existing testing regime could be phased out and restricted to high-risk herds only. It would appear that the main reason for the reluctance to start a vaccination programme is vaccinated cattle would show up as positive reactors with the skin test - currently the only approved test for use in the EU. However, the skin test is not a perfect test (and yet the overall TB status off an area is based solely on the results of this test). It indicates that the animal has mounted an immune response capable of recognising M. bovis and does not conclude actual infection, so many cattle are being killed needlessly. It means that animals have been exposed to a bacterium that can cause TB at some point in their life (or have been vaccinated!).
Current EU regulations mean that vaccinated cattle cannot be exported to the rest of the EU, as current tests cannot distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals. In reality this does not matter for meat and dairy products as pasteurisaion and cooking kills the bacteria that causes bTB (lesioned cattle do go into the foodchain anyway once affected areas have been removed). The only products at any risk would be those used in their raw state, where additional precautions would be needed. Many countries, where bTB is endemic or only partially controlled, export products to the UK.
The real reason for the existing eradication policy in the UK would appear to be to comply with EU regulations that insist on its countries achieving TB-free status. This is to protect the market for live exports of cattle. However, if one looks at the export figures for Great Britain over the last few years, it is difficult how such a decision can be justified in cost terms for the UK.
In 2006 89,567 cattle were exported with a value of £3,332,000
In 2007 85,487 cattle were exported with a value of £2,548,1457
In 2008 51.809 cattle were exported with a value of £1,457,000
In 2009 11.050 cattle were exported with a value of £152,000
The numbers and value is falling year-on-year and, even more surprising, is the fact that the value of this market is considerably less than the annual costs of the existing eradication policy for bTB. Surely this makes a vaccination programme for cattle viable and an appropriate case should be made to the EU in this respect? Of course it would need to be approved by the politicians, farming unions, veterinary professions and EU - and here we hit the stumbling blocks ....
Thanks Sally
ReplyDeleteThose figures suggest that culling 54 badgers would cost more than the export market was worth in 2009. Crazy.