When are we going to find out if the badger culls have cut TB in cattle?
As part of the government’s 25-year strategy to eradicate TB, farming minister George Eustice visited the West Country to launch a new cross-industry TB biosecurity campaign which includes the introduction of the TB Hub (www.tbhub.co.uk), a website providing beef and dairy farmers with a range of free advice.
But he was unable to answer my question.
The website has been created by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) in conjunction with the Animal and Plant Health Agency, the British Cattle Veterinary Association, Defra, Landex and the NFU, to provide information on all aspects of dealing with TB on farms.
Among the guidance is a five-point plan outlining measures farmers should take to help protect their herds from bovine TB. The plan includes the following common sense advice:
- Restrict contact between badgers and cattle
- Manage cattle feed and water to reduce the chance of contamination by other infected cattle or badgers
- Stop infected cattle entering the herd by careful investigation of the TB history of purchased cattle and post movement testing of new cattle before introducing them in to the herd
- Reduce risk from neighbouring herds by awareness of their TB status and ensuring barriers between herds are kept in place
- Minimise risk of infection from cattle manure by ensuring all manure is well rotted and spread on land used for arable purposes or if spread on pasture the land is not grazed for at least two months.
The website expands on these points in detail and while some of the measures are more practical than others, the clear message is that although the government will continue the badger cull in certain areas, they also expect farmers to do their bit by heeding the biosecurity measures set out in this five-point plan.
George Eustice was also asked about the effectiveness of this autumn’s badger culling programme in three areas of the West Country and although he said that we will have to wait for the official results to be announced it appeared he felt things had gone rather more successfully this year than in the previous two.
However, what we really need to know is not how successful marksmen have been at killing badgers but whether the culling has had any impact on the occurrence of TB in cattle. Although we have anecdotal evidence that it has helped, the government needs to carry out a proper analysis of the evidence which will help inform the decision whether the cull areas should be expanded.
James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk
As the second year of badger culling starts in the pilot areas of Somerset and Gloucestershire I feel I must once again make comment on the perennial debate surrounding badgers and bovine TB.
Last year around 1800 badgers were killed in the two cull areas which was less than was required to reach the 70% target which has been identified by scientists as the appropriate proportion of the population which needs to be slaughtered so as to control the disease. This year around 930 badgers need to be killed in order to reach the 70% target which reflects the reduction in size of the badger population following last year’s cull.
The rights and wrongs of whether or not the cull should go ahead are endless but what is undoubtedly true is that the incidence of the disease in cattle has increased dramatically over the last 20 years to unacceptable levels.
For instance in 1996, approximately 2,250,000 cattle were tested for TB and in total 3,776 cattle were slaughtered as either a reactor or contact. In 2013, provisional figures indicate 8,393,303 cattle were tested and 32,620 cattle were slaughtered. The emotional and financial cost to farmers and the premature death of 32,000 cattle are matters which are often conveniently forgotten in this debate.
However, I would make two observations on the statistics above.
The first is that biosecurity measures on farm are taken very seriously by both government and farmers and before anyone says anything to the contrary the time and cost incurred by farmers in testing almost 8.4m cattle last year should not be underestimated. In particular it should be understood the test involves a vet injecting an animal on one day then the vet returns to “read” the test a few days later. This is a significant task which is costly for farmers both in time and money, even if no reactors are found.
The second point I would make is that a tenfold increase in reactors from 1996 to 2013 is a very serious problem and it is clear that biosecurity measures alone are simply not controlling the disease. The only logical answer to this is that there must be an outside reservoir of the disease which keeps on re-infecting the cattle herd and badgers have been identified as such a wildlife reservoir.
I cannot see how the disease in cattle can ever be brought under control unless the disease in badgers is also tackled. In this context a similar programme to that in cattle of testing and culling badgers would be ideal but this is simply not practical in a wild population. Vaccination is also a possibility and may well have an important role to play, particularly in healthy badger populations to prevent the further spread of the disease.
However, where the disease is prevalent in both cattle and badgers I can see no alternative at this stage other than controlling badger numbers, which in themselves have increased dramatically since they became protected under the Badger Act in 1992.
So, unpalatable as it may be to some, culling badgers is the only practical solution in the short term to bringing this disease under control and as DEFRA secretary Liz Truss said last week, “doing nothing is not an option”.
James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk
