Badger Culls

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

Badger Culling

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

Progress since last winter's floods

Last week, as the agricultural correspondent of this paper, I was privileged to be invited by James Heappey, the Conservative candidate for Wells, to meet the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Owen Paterson MP.

Mr Paterson was in the area to visit the Bath and West Show and to investigate what progress has been made in the aftermath of last winter’s devastating floods on the Somerset Levels.

Having never met Mr Paterson before, my overriding impression was of a man who is committed to and knowledgeable about rural issues. He was questioned hard by a small group of farmers, landowners and rural professionals and he demonstrated that he had an in depth knowledge of a variety of subjects although the conversation was dominated by the ongoing impact that TB is having on so many livestock farmers in this area.

On this subject Mr Paterson was quite clear that the culling of badgers will remain part of the ongoing policy to eradicate the disease in cattle. The culling will continue in the two pilot areas in west Somerset and Gloucestershire and in the longer term he would like to see these areas extended widely throughout the counties which are badly affected by the disease.

He did also emphasise the need for continued bio-security measures in cattle which already involves a strict testing regime and culling of infected animals but this alone, he explained, will simply not eradicate the disease.

Other measures including vaccination of both cattle and badgers may become part of the strategy in the future but further research in to diagnostic tests and vaccinations and changes to European legislation will be required before such measures can be employed widely and cost effectively.

On the matter of flooding, which was another hot topic, he emphasised the need for local farmers, landowners, the Internal Drainage Boards, County and District Councils, the Environment Agency and conservation organisations to work in partnership to set up a Rivers Board to manage the rivers and other waterways in the long term to prevent a repeat of last winter’s problems.

He was keen to know how the EA was getting on with the initial dredging works on the Parrett and the Tone which has been funded by government. He was concerned that such work should not be held up by local bureaucracy, whether that be because of unnecessary health and safety or environmental hurdles but equally he emphasised the point that in the longer term it will be up to local organisations to sort this out for themselves.

He noted that in other parts of the country such as in Lincolnshire, landowners and farmers seemed to work well in partnership with the EA and he saw no reason why such arrangements cannot be put in place more effectively on the Somerset Levels. It seemed to me he was clearly setting down some parameters for the future in that although government have been willing to help with funds to “pump prime” the initial capital works, the ongoing responsibility will fall to local organisations to work much more effectively going forward with each other.

So, all in all, it was a fascinating insight in to the thinking of government at a high level and I came away with the feeling that we at least had someone in charge who understood the needs of the countryside which is a far cry from the dark years of Margaret Beckett’s leadership of DEFRA under the last Labour government.

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

Badger/Bovine TB

In recent years I have become increasingly concerned by the effect TB is having on the welfare of our farming clients. Few people actually realise the emotional strain that is put upon families who have devoted their lives to farming, only to watch animal after animal test positive for TB in the knowledge that these stock, some of which may have been bred for generations, are now condemned to slaughter.

Farmers are often portrayed as being “hard” and “unfeeling” but in reality if you are to make a living out of rearing livestock you do need to have an empathy with your livestock after all if they are unwell they will neither grow to put on meat, become pregnant to provide lambs or calves nor produce milk. Thus the welfare of their animals is very important to farmers but they are also realists in that where there is life there is also death which is something the rest of society has, in large part, become sanitised from.

Despite this acceptance of death, the impact of the premature slaughter of livestock because of TB is often hard to handle both emotionally and financially. Farmers do receive compensation for livestock lost to TB but this is rarely sufficient to replace the livestock and goes nowhere at all to compensate for the additional costs and losses resulting from a TB breakdown such as additional feed required to sustain cattle that cannot be moved off the holding or the loss of milk production.

So, it was with interest that I recently attended a farmers meeting hosted by the Shepton Veterinary Group where Paddy Gordon, partner in the practice, spoke to a room full of dairy farmers all eager to learn how they can help reduce the impact of this devastating disease. Paddy who is a Cambridge graduate, part time lecturer at the Royal Veterinary College, winner of various national awards as well as a practicing vet is no intellectual slouch and he stated that the current policy of TB control is simply not working.

The disease has spread at an alarming rate in the last 25 years; in 1986 235 cattle tested positive in the whole of the UK while in 2010 over 28,500 cattle tested positive. Surely this is evidence enough that the current policies are not working. In Somerset, which has escaped the worst effects of the disease until the last 10 years, the number of new herd break downs increased from 34 in 2001 to 303 in 2010. Paddy Gordon estimated that in the last 10 years the number of herds under restriction has also increased from 2% to 15% in the county.

Paddy explained that farmers are sceptical about the accuracy of the TB test but he rebutted this assertion by explaining that the test is pretty accurate and the reason there are so many “false positives” is more likely to be because evidence of the disease has not become physically visible at the abattoir rather than the animal actually not being infected. Of more concern is that the test misses some infected animals at the early and late stages of the disease.

In fact Paddy thinks this is a significant issue which is why herds do need to be tested frequently to reduce the chance of cow to cow transmission. However he also went on to explain that however frequently the tests are carried out, if there is an external source of infection which is not being tackled the disease will never be brought under control.

In this respect, badgers have been identified as the primary wildlife source of the disease and recently the government has announced that it will allow badger culling in pilot areas. Paddy went on to address the assembled audience on the practicalities of doing this in the Shepton Mallet area. The theory is that if the badger population can be reduced by 70% in a minimum area of 150 sq Km then the disease will reduce in cattle by as much as 28%. By way of example, 150 sq Km would represent a circle around Shepton Mallet extending as far as Oakhill in the north and Ditcheat in the south.

It was recognised this would be both very controversial and a massive logistical task but many farmers are desperate to reduce the impact of this disease on their lives and would be willing to pay for the cull which would be carried out by trained marksmen. In the meantime many farmers are already introducing additional biosecurity measures, trying to exclude badgers from cattle buildings and feed stores but this is not easy because a persistent badger can get through a three inch gap and obviously when cattle are out to pasture this can be even more difficult unless we have mains electric fences around all fields which would no doubt also be unpopular with walkers and the like.

So, what can be done? Well Paddy Gordon’s view, which seemed to be accepted by those present was that in the short term a badger cull, alongside continued cattle testing is the only way of tackling the disease although in the long term an effective vaccine for badgers will ultimately be the answer.

I find it sad, having been involved in research in to badgers and bovine TB back in the late 1980s that the arguments over this disease have hardly moved forward since then which is probably why the disease has continued to spread. Therefore regrettably I think the time has now come for action on badgers although at the same time I think as much resource as possible should be focussed on the development of an effective oral vaccine for badgers because that will probably be the most effective solution to a problem that everyone would like to see behind us.

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

The Badgers and Bovine TB issue

The Badgers and Bovine TB issue rumbles on with a recent debate in Westminster Hall where Farming Minister Jim Paice strongly defended the government’s proposal to introduce a trial culling programme of badgers.

Much of the debate surrounded the science behind the government’s proposals but Jim Paice responded knowledgeably stating that, “I do not believe that doing nothing should be an option”. He went on to explain in some detail that it is widely accepted that a badger cull as proposed would reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by 16% and explained further that the latest “science shows that the incidence of TB in the culling zones fell by up to 34%”

It seems to me the debate about the science will go on forever but what is also clear to me is that if we only try to control the disease in cattle and pay no attention to badgers which are known to be a source of infection in cattle then the incidence of TB in cattle will continue no matter how many cattle are tested and subsequently slaughtered. That is not to say that other avenues of research should not continue.

For instance an effective injectable vaccine has been developed for badgers although it is not practical to administer on a wide scale while an effective oral vaccine unfortunately appears to be many years away. As far as cattle are concerned an effective vaccine is thought not to be far away but there will then be major problems with the EU in getting agreement to use it.

So while the TB problem is getting worse both financially and geographically it seems the government’s proposals to introduce trial badger culls is coming nearer to fruition but it is also clear from Mr Paice’s statement that there will be a sting in the tail for the wider farming community in that the cattle testing regime is likely to become tighter. As Mr Paice stated in the debate, “We propose to reduce or abandon compensation where farmers are overdue a TB test.” So the bovine TB debate continues and although it appears this government is prepared to implement some form of control of badgers this will be accompanied by ever more stringent cattle testing and biosecurity measures on farm.

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells