IT'S UNETHICAL, IT'S UNSCIENTIFIC & IT DOESNT WORK

Here are the top 12 lame claims made by people who want to cull

Lame Claim No 1: Is Bovine TB a threat to humans?
Lame Claim no. 2: No country in the world has solved bTb without first addressing it in the wildlife population.
Lame Claim no. 3: Thousands of cattle are being needlessly slaughtered each year, at a cost of £1 billion to taxpayers, because they are infected with bTB.
Lame Claim no. 4: Bovine TB in increasing at an alarming rate.
Lame Claim no. 5: Badgers have spread bTB across the country.
Lame Claim no. 6: All the science tells us to cull.
Lame Claim No. 7: The EU condemns the UK’s control of policy, and confirms the money given is not for badgers.
Lame Claim no. 8: We have stopped perturbation
Lame Claim no. 9: Free shooting is the best way forward.
Lame Claim no. 10: No science, no trial; 130,000 dead badgers, no data collection and rising costs.
Lame Claim no 11: There is no oral badger vaccine as it breaks down in the stomach and is unavailable
Lame Claim no 12: You cannot vaccinate

Claim no. 1: Bovine TB is a threat to Humans

Bovine TB does not represent a threat to the human population; in fact, cattle infected with bTB enter our food chain every day, and more than 22 % of all new cases remain undetected until the animal is slaughtered. (77) We often drink milk from bTb cattle. If only a few lesions are found the meat is considered fit for human consumption.

Mycobacterium bovis, or the bovine tubercle bacillus, is an aerobic bacterium that is part of the mycobacterium tuberculosis complex, and is the cause of TB in cattle. The organism is carried by many animals including deer, cats, dogs, pigs, alpacas, sheep and – of course – cattle.

In a recent study of 4,715 mammal carcases from the southwest of England, infection was confirmed in the following species: fox, stoat, polecat, common shrew, yellow-necked mouse, wood mouse, field vole, grey squirrel, roe deer, red deer, fallow deer and muntjac (11).

Bovine TB can jump the species barrier and cause TB in humans, and that’s where the problem historically lies. In the 1930s and 40s, there were more than 50,000 cases of TB, and 2,500 deaths a year.

During the 1930s, a large proportion of dairy cows were infected with M. bovis. Many were kept near large cities, to provide urban dwellers with fresh milk, and most were closely confined in poorly ventilated cowsheds, which provided ideal conditions for the spread of the disease.

Modern farming practices, with huge numbers of animals in small areas, have recreated the situation in recent years; indeed, the highest rates of bovine TB are found on intensive farms.

Cattle and Dairy Farming has changed in its intensity since the war but unfortunately not for the better.

By 1960, the UK government introduced compulsory cattle testing, and devised a compensation programme for all cattle that had been destroyed. By 1960, all herds had been tested twice for TB; all “reactors” (animals that tested positive) were slaughtered, and bTB became a notifiable disease.

The combination of the pasteurisation of milk, immunisation and healthier diets has resulted in a huge drop in the number of cases of TB in the UK over the last 100 years, and in most circles it is no longer considered a matter of concern. In the last decade, for example, there have been only a handful of cases of humans contracting TB from animals, mainly in immigrant populations.

Paul R. Torgerson and David J. Torgerson stated in their paper Public health and bovine tuberculosis: what’s all the fuss about? (22) that bovine TB was not a risk to human health: “We propose that bTB control in cattle is irrelevant as a public health policy.”
BTB is not a threat to humans.

Claim no. 2: No country in the world has solved bTb without first addressing it in the wildlife population.

Of course that isn’t true – and you don’t need to travel very far to see some strong evidence against it.

In 1938 we slaughtered 47,476 cattle with bTB here in England; in 1979, the total was just 628, without any culling of the wildlife population.
An outbreak in north west England in the 1970s was also eliminated without harming wildlife. Intensive farming increases the incidence of bTB, and the trend in that direction since the war has been a continuous one; the consequences of cramming more animals into the space available, in poor conditions, can only be detrimental to their health and the prevalence of bTB.

Despite all the commotion about a recent rise in bTB in England, only 270 new incidents were reported in herds across the country in the month of March 2013. If we look at the history of the disease there are fluctuations, so that number isn’t surprising.

The level of infection won’t stay the same every year, especially if 11,146 more tests are carried out in one year than in the previous year (as was the situation in 2012, when compared to 2011); an increase in numbers is inevitable.
Why is the APT not being calculated? Unfortunately it’s very easy – and tempting – to exaggerate the increase in bTB in order to justify a badger cull when you’re set on the idea.

Ireland

So far, 97,733 badgers have been culled in Ireland; yet the incidence of bTB is still at the same rate. Ireland is supposed to keep the Bern Convention up to date with the requested yearly figures; in fact information was last submitted in 2001.

In 2012, 6,939 badgers were slaughtered, at a cost of £3.4 million; but bTB reactors were down just 55. This graph shows how the incidence of bTB fell before culling; figures are
shown as following a trend, when in fact the number of cases actually fluctuated over the period in question.

bTB dropped in Ireland before culling and government figures to back culling badgers are misleading.

They took a high point in the history of bTB compared to a low point to really exaggerate a drop. In 1958, 160,000 cattle had bTB and in 1979 less than 20,000 - no badgers were killed.

In 2012 the Irish government spent almost €34,000,000 in its programme to control Bovine TB in the Republic of Ireland. A tenth of this or 3.4 million was spent on culling almost 7,000 badgers.
After all this slaughter only 55 less cattle were diagnosed with bovine TB compared to 2011. That’s an expenditure of almost €500 euros per badger or almost €62,000 for every cow below 2011’s.

Ireland has culled over 96,000 badgers since 1985 yet we have not eradicated bovine TB.

This campaign has resulted in the population of badgers being greatly reduced over large areas of the Irish countryside and may lead to local extinctions (49).
The loss of badgers is a disaster on an ecosystem level as badger’s are known to play an important role in temperate ecosystems as they act as ecosystem engineers, seed dispersers and predators (47).

The culling of over 57,000 badgers between 2003 and 2012 coincided with a reduction in animal disease incidence by 1%.
However to say that this reduction can be put down to badger culling is misleading as a number of things happened over this period that would have been expected to reduce bTB.
Over the period 2004-2011
The national herd is down by 16.7%
The number of herds is down 6.7%
The number of tests per head of cattle population is up 13.5%

Year 2000: IFN-γ test used increasingly more often. Since the year 2000, the numbers of samples submitted to laboratory have increased yearly and over 12,000 samples are now tested annually.

This test is much more accurate than the interferon skin test and an increase in its use will only have improved the situation (50)
Anamnestic ELISA test used increasingly more often (50)
Introduction of Reaction Herd Management System (50)
Badger culling programme went national 2003-2004 but badger culling had been on an upward trend previous to this.

The Irish badger culling trials the East Offaly and Four areas project demonstrated a reduction in confirmed TB herd restrictions following badger culling (50,51,52). The Four Area Project and the East Offaly project both incorporated natural barriers and removal buffers in their study designs in order to reduce the movements of immigrant badgers back into removal areas (53,54,55).

The effectiveness of the barriers varied greatly with open Sea and large rivers being found to significantly affect badger movements (47). The rapid immigration of badgers from neighbouring social groups that have been observed in English studies following population reduction (56,57,58,59 & 60) were not observed in the East Offaly project (61) . These barriers may have been important in reducing badger movements in and out of the study sites and therefore may influenced the likelihood of observing the perturbation effect which has been such a vital element in the RBCT badger culling trials in the south west of England (62,63 & 64).

Other studies in Ireland have shown that when badger densities are reduced through culling that there is a breakdown in normal badger territoriality with a change in frontier latrine patterns and an increase in detected movements (65).

The differences in the badger populations between ROI and England make comparisons between studies difficult.

Nowhere else in Europe are social group sizes as large as those in the South West of England (47,66). The mean group size is known to be larger in England than Ireland (49). There is also a significant difference in the estimated badger population density between Britain and Ireland, with reported national densities of 3.2 badger’s km2 in Britain and 1.9 badgers km2 in Ireland (62,65) Differences also exist between the capture methods employed in the different trials in the ROI and England. The Irish studies employed stop restraint snares. While stopped restraint snares are less efficient then cages at catching younger badgers they are overall thought to be more efficient than cages (67). For example a study on Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Spain showed that restraints are more efficient at capturing wild animals compared to cages (68). Trapping efficiency is significant when considering perturbation as in part of the East Offaly study where partial removal (approx. 50%) was observed there was a fivefold increase in herd (61).

England

The increase in TB reactors in the UK over the last year - which is being used by Mr Owen Paterson to justify the proposed culls this summer - may be partially explained by the increase in testing over the same period. Between 1988-1990, the amount of testing in the ROI increased by over a million. The peaks in the number of TB reactors in 1989 and 1990 (TB reactors increased by 11,425) have been directly attributed to the increase in testing (69). In England, 11,146 more tests were carried out in 2012 compared to 2011 and this would also be expected to result in a higher TB reactor figure in 2012.

These graphs clearly show the amount of cattle slaughtered after a skin test and both show peaks and troughs during each year. To prevent the creation of any variations; Badgers were not culled during this time. 22% of all new confirmed TB cases in cattle are first discovered at slaughterhouses, where the animals were supposedly coming from "TB-free" herds. In some cases, milk from diseased cattle was not successfully kept out of the human food chain.



Defra acknowledged many pitfalls in the system and say there is no practical way to enforce the leaving of [infected] pastures vacant for 60 days on a routine basis.
"Enforcement of animal disease control policies is fragmented across a number of bodies and weaknesses have been identified, particularly in relation to co-ordination between AHVLA and the local authorities."
It is incredible that if bTB is found within a farm herd, the neighbouring farms are not informed. We seem to have learnt very little from foot and mouth epidemic.
"The delivery of the programme is being undermined at present by resource constraints (particularly in local authorities) ... and inefficiencies caused by the delayed roll out of the new TB software."

All of these factors need to be dealt with prior to any culling of badgers.

In Ireland, recent research published in 2012 showed that cattle outbreaks on neighbouring farms were caused by strains that were not identical clearly showing that badgers were not the cause. The cattle were from different sources as was the bTB (34).

In the 1970s, an outbreak of bTB in northwest England was eliminated by the slaughter of cattle and restrictions to their movements (sounds familiar!). Had the disease been maintained by badgers, the problem could not have been solved without their removal. Badgers were not targeted; yet the area was soon declared free of infection.



Research from Durham University released in 2013 has confirmed that badgers are not major player in the transfer of bTB. Professor Peter Atkins of Durham University has stated:

“It is very probable that other animals did and do carry TB, including badgers and deer, but cattle-to-cattle transfer is likely also to be an important factor. For example, only one out of nearly 400 badgers killed in road accidents in Cheshire over two decades tested for the disease turned out to be positive. This goes against received wisdom that bTB would have stayed in badgers which obviously weren’t culled when the cattle were in previous decades, and they then reinfected cattle stocks. But this interspecies transference seems unlikely to have occurred on the necessary scale. (21)

“Furthermore, no one has yet proved definitively which direction the infection travels between species. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial, which ran from 1998 to 2006, indicated complex, interwoven patterns of infection, and concluded badger culling was unlikely to be effective for the future control of bTB.”

Prof. Atkins believes that bTB in badgers is a spillover disease from cattle, rather than an endemic condition, and probably does not persist over lengthy periods. He contends that a cull could even exacerbate the problem (22).

Prof. Atkins has also said, “Bovine tuberculosis was completely eliminated from Cheshire, and from the northwestern counties which do have badger populations. That elimination took place in the 1950s. And what you’d expect according to the traditional badger ecology is that bovine tuberculosis would have stayed in the badgers – which obviously weren’t culled at that time – if there is an association between the two species, but the road traffic accident data shows that that wasn’t the case; in fact only one animal out of I think it’s 400 that were collected over two decades in Cheshire was infected with the disease, which doesn’t suggest it was endemic in that particular county.

“Farms needed to re-stock after foot-and-mouth with fresh animals, and very often they bought those animals from the southwest, which is a traditional cattle breeding area; so in County Durham, for instance, where quite a lot of cattle were slaughtered as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, cattle were brought in and it’s been shown that actually on several occasions, those cattle brought bovine tuberculosis with them into areas which previously hadn’t had it, so this was rather ironic. Almost certainly a proportion of the increase in bovine tuberculosis after 2001 is the result of that restocking after foot-and-mouth disease. I think that the ecology of the assumption that badgers are always responsible for the cattle disease has got to be reviewed.”

Our biosecurity is extremely poor. In 2011, the European Commission considered our biosecurity practices in farming so dismal that it threatened to withdraw the £32 million annual funding (12) to combat bTB. That move saw Jim Pace (the then minister) hot footing it to Brussels to plead our case. He promised more rigorous bio-security in return for the funding; but very little has changed.

New Zealand

In New Zealand, more than 100,000 possums were killed in an attempt to stop the spread of bTB, and it was only when the farming community was subjected to very strict biosecurity regulations, and very tight restrictions on the movement of cattle, that the number of cases of bTB actually dropped – by an astonishing 53% in deer and 58% in cattle. The farmers finally bought into the fact that they themselves were in control, and the country’s bTb issues have been fully resolved. (In New Zealand, cattle farmers pay 55% of the costs involved, so it’s to their advantage to solve the problem of bTB in cattle. That isn’t the case here in the UK.)

Dr Paul Livingstone, Technical Manager for the Animal Health Board (AHB) in New Zealand, has been researching, managing and controlling the bTB problem for more than 30 years.

He explained how bovine TB was managed in New Zealand through the AHB, and outlined the main elements of the country’s control programme, which has successfully moved the prevalence rate in herds from a peak of 3.87% in 1994/5 to just 0.35% in 2008/9, despite the presence of wild animal TB vectors (possums):

“The programme has a clear strategy of cattle testing, movement controls and the culling of possums. The NZ TB programme costs around $88m (£34m), and cattle farmers pay 55% of this.

He explained how bovine TB was managed in New Zealand through the AHB, and outlined the main elements of the country’s control programme, which has successfully moved the prevalence rate in herds from a peak of 3.87% in 1994/5 to just 0.35% in 2008/9, despite the presence of wild animal TB vectors (possums):

“The programme has a clear strategy of cattle testing, movement controls and the culling of possums. The NZ TB programme costs around $88m (£34m), and cattle farmers pay 55% of this.

“Basically, farmers pay for all the cattle-related measures (testing, compensation etc.), and then they share the cost of the vector control programme (50% government, 40% farmers, 10% local councils). Farmers receive compensation at a rate of 65% of fair market value, although there is limited scope for this to increase to 100% for dairy cattle under certain circumstances, after this was agreed with the dairy farmers – because they have to pay!

Free living ferrets (Mustela putoris) (80) have been found to be infected in several locations in New Zealand where their infections were considered to have arisen from cattle or deer (de Lisle et al., 1993). Subsequent studies have implicated ferrets as the possible source of infection for some outbreaks of tuberculosis in cattle in New Zealand (Ragg et al., 1995)

“Farmers have a significant say in the programme through the AHB, both at a national level and through regional TB committees.”
Dr Livingstone went on to say that the other main difference between the New Zealand and UK programmes is that New Zealand’s farmers fund, and are deeply involved in, all aspects of the TB programme. Representatives of the dairy, beef and deer industries, together with regional and central government, elect the directors to the AHB Board. All six directors are farmers or have farming connections. In comparison, from my understanding of the UK situation, farmers here don’t appear to want to be involved – and most especially don’t want to pay. Once farmers accept that they should pay, they can start having a say in the policy that is to be adopted. In New Zealand, it wasn’t until farmers started paying and taking responsibility for the programme that it started making progress.
In New Zealand vaccinated cattle are slaughter and go into the food chain as does the milk from these cows.

America

In Michigan, in North America, bTB was found to be more prevalent in areas where wild deer came to feed near cattle. The cattle naturally infected the deer; but once again, incidence of the disease only fell when cattle and deer stopped feeding together, and not as a result of the intensive culling of deer. (Uptake had been low, with the farming community reluctant to remove deer from feeding with cattle in sheds and in the field, so feeding recreational deer was actually made illegal in the USA.)

Some very large herds of deer (11) now dominate parts of southwest England, where it’s clear there are several pockets of heavy infection (4). Unlike badgers, deer are stalked by wealthy landowners and their friends – a highly lucrative activity, which, some tenant farmers complain, prevents them from controlling infected deer. (Many of these farmers are more concerned about deer than they are about badgers in the matter of bTB.) Our government has chosen to ignore the farmers’ concerns, which is hardly surprising, given that many of our government ministers own large estates in the region.

Switzerland

Switzerland eradicated bTB by slaughtering entire herds rather than single reactive cows, and has been officially free of the disease (OTF) since 1960. The disease has been controlled solely by means of passive surveillance of abattoirs since 1980, although isolated cases, which are sometimes due to the reactivation of human M. bovis infections, with subsequent transmission to cattle, have been observed in recent years.(46) Just this year A herd of cows has been euthanized in the canton of Fribourg, after it was found that most were infected with bovine tuberculosis. The herd was tested after one cow became seriously ill last month.

Neuchâtel’s Department of Food Safety and Veterinary Affairs says the testing showed that the herd had “a high rate of infection” and decided to euthanize and incinerate all of the animals.The health officials say the high rate indicates that the tuberculosis was present for years, and that cows which tested negative could have in fact been carrying the infectious agent. Showing once again that M. bovis bacterium, which is the causative agent of the disease, can remain latent and undetected for many years

Europe

In continental Europe, the overall spread of bTB is showing a slight increase; in percentage terms, both OTF and non-OTF countries have reported a small rise in the number of herds that are testing positive.

The movement of any livestock always brings the risk of disease – and this problem is exacerbated by the difficulty of identifying bTB infection in a herd. It’s scarcely any wonder that bTB is spreading! Current bTB eradication and control programmes in Europe face a range of challenges, especially given that whole-herd slaughter is now a less attractive option, for economic reasons (20).

Bovine TB has been around for several hundred years, and has become more widespread here in the UK since the move towards more intensive cattle breeding and farming, which started in the 18th century and accelerated spectacularly during the second half of the 20th.

We believe the disease probably peaked in the mid- to late 19th century, when it may have been carried by as many as 80% of cattle in some counties.
There are cattle in Great Britain, on 81,000 holdings. Every year, there are an astonishing 13 million plus movements of these animals.
Once again, a solution that involves no harm to wildlife is readily apparent; simply tightening and enforcing existing regulations on animal husbandry and transport would clearly result in a huge improvement in the health and wellbeing of livestock.
Despite several highly-contagious diseases among UK cattle, 40 per cent of all British cattle are moved annually; with over 13 million cattle movements take place every year as farmers buy and sell stock.
Closely mirroring the historical rise in bTB cases is the rise in cattle movements, with 480,294 more cattle moved in 2010 than 2009 (42). Cattle movements have more than quadrupled between 1999 (3,373,646) and 2010 (13,690,294) and have involved over 127 million animals since 1998 (42) (43).

Bovine TB is a farming disease, and must be solved, first, foremost and finally, by farmers. If they adopt the necessary bio-security measures and restrictions, it will soon be eradicated.

Both history and science have clearly shown that badgers are not to blame for bTB infection in herds. It is both impractical and pointless to make our wildlife suffer for the inadequacies of our farming methods. It is also, of course, extremely expensive, and is therefore an appalling waste of money.

Claim no. 3:
Thousands of cattle are being needlessly slaughtered each year, at a cost of £1 billion to taxpayers, because they are infected with bTB.

Well, that’s not true either. Every year the UK’s farming industry sends 350,000 cattle, most of which are suffering from illnesses that are easily treatable and preventable, for premature slaughter. Only 25,000 of these, or one in 14, are suffering from bTB. Intensive dairy farming, in which cows never graze in the fields, has, not surprisingly, resulted in an increase in mastitis and lameness. Cows’ hooves, like those of horses, are unsuited to harsh concrete; and even lame cows that are unable to move are often milked lying on their sides – for the sake of profit. Dairy farming has changed beyond all recognition, and is now a highly intensive industry; given that cows are held in crowded sheds where they suffer from stress, it’s little wonder bTB is prevalent. They now produce ten times as much milk as nature intended, and are often milked for more than 6 hours a day. Inbreeding is used to increase productivity, and when their yield falls they’re needlessly slaughtered. It’s astonishing that anyone can regard today’s farming practices as humane.



Claim no. 4: Bovine TB in increasing at an alarming rate.

In the 1960′s farming in England was experiencing a serious outbreak of Bovine TB but through careful cattle management, strict bio-security and stringent animal testing the proportion of cattle reacting to the TB tests reduced by a factor of 4 in just 5 years. For the next 20 years bTB in cattle was brought under control and kept in check with very few cattle suffering infection. During the 1980′s following a marked relaxation of cattle testing and movement controls the situation began to change for the worse. Bovine TB was again on the increase and to make matters worse, the arrival of 2001 brought with it the worst outbreak of foot and mouth the country had ever seen. With over 6 million animals slaughtered farmers were forced to restock with cattle, most of which came from abroad.

Rules set by DEFRA for restocking (70)

• Cleansing and Disinfection

• DECC Inspection

• Periodic testing for FMD

There was no requirement for bovine TB testing on restocked cattle, a mistake that undoubtedly added hugely to the resurgence in bovine TB cases.

The number of cattle with bTB in the UK is actually falling year on year ; figures presented to Parliament in October 2012 (6) showed that the toll the disease is taking on farms has declined steadily over the last five years, without the removal of any badgers. Control measures have been increasingly effective, and new incidents in herds have fallen by 39% since 2008, from 5,007 to 3,018, while the number of individual cattle slaughtered has decreased by an extraordinary 44% – from 39,015 to 21,512 – over the same period.

Nevertheless, figures released by Defra in March 2013 show an increase in bTB or do they ?

Despite all the commotion about a rise in bTB in England, only 270 new incidents were reported in herds across the country in the month of March 2013. If we look at the history of the disease there are fluctuations, so that number isn’t surprising.

The level of infection won’t stay the same every year, especially if 11,146 more tests are carried out in one year than in the previous year (as was the situation in 2012, when compared to 2011); an increase in numbers is inevitable. Why is the APT not being calculated? Unfortunately it’s very easy – and tempting – to exaggerate the increase in bTB in order to justify a badger cull when you’re set on the idea.

The bTB skin test is simply not good enough and infected cattle continue to live and infect from within the herd. Intensive farming makes the condition right for bTB to spread easily. The problem of bTB lies mainly within intensive farming.

The M. bovis bacterium, which is the causative agent of the disease, can remain latent and undetected for many years; just recently, a cow from a closed herd was found to be riddled with bTB at the time of slaughter, and had clearly been infected for a long time; a routine skin test on the animal had not identified the infection in the previous five years, however, and she had continued to infect others throughout that time (13).

In Switzerland, the first outbreak in 40 years, saw the entire herd slaughtered. It was shown that many of the cattle had been infected with bTb for several years showing that cattle had been infected yet undetected(46)

In Ireland, recent research published in 2012 showed that cattle outbreaks on neighbouring farms were caused by strains that were not identical clearly showing that badgers were not the cause. (34)

There are 8.5m cattle in the Uk and less than 0.5% of them have bTB

When cattle test positive for bTB they become the property of the government, and the farmer is paid their market value. He can re-stock his herd with new cattle, which will subsequently be infected by others that have not yet tested positive. About a third of reactive cattle are sold for human consumption both here and overseas (we export cows’ feet to South Africa and tracheas to Japan, for example). The industry is worth some £2 billion per year, and it isn’t the farmer who makes a loss but the taxpayer, to the tune of £20 million every year.

Claim no. 5: Badgers have spread bTB across the country.

Given that badgers don’t generally travel by bus or lorry, and rarely cover long distances on foot, the widespread and frequent movement of cattle provides a much more convincing explanation for the spread of bTB in the UK. The map below shows the pattern over a 20-year period.

The spread across the country mirrors exactly intensive farming. Just like humans, cattle under stress become sick and their crowded conditions makes the spread of a disease common place.

The bTB skin test is simply not good enough and infected cattle continue to live and infect from within the herd. Intensive farming makes the condition right for bTB to spread easily. The problem of bTB lies mainly within intensive farming. The M. bovis bacterium, which is the causative agent of the disease, can remain latent and undetected for many years; just recently, a cow from a closed herd was found to be riddled with bTB at the time of slaughter, and had clearly been infected for a long time; a routine skin test on the animal had not identified the infection in the previous five years, however, and she had continued to infect others throughout that time (13).

In Switzerland, the first outbreak in 40 years, saw the entire herd slaughtered. It was shown that many of the cattle had been infected with bTb for several years showing that cattle had been infected yet undetected(46)

The cattle restocked after the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 was free from tb testing is a mistake that undoubtedly added hugely to the resurgence in bovine TB cases.

In the 1970s, an outbreak of bTB in northwest England was eliminated by the slaughter of cattle and restrictions to their movements (sounds familiar!). Had the disease been maintained by badgers, the problem could not have been solved without their removal. Badgers were not targeted; yet the area was soon declared free of infection.

Research from Durham University released in 2013 has confirmed that badgers are not a major player in the transfer of bTB. Professor Peter Atkins of Durham University has stated:

“It is very probable that other animals did and do carry TB, including badgers and deer, but cattle-to-cattle transfer is likely also to be an important factor. For example, only one out of nearly 400 badgers killed in road accidents in Cheshire over two decades tested for the disease turned out to be positive. This goes against received wisdom that bTB would have stayed in badgers which obviously weren’t culled when the cattle were in previous decades, and they then reinfected cattle stocks. But this interspecies transference seems unlikely to have occurred on the necessary scale. (21)

“Furthermore, no one has yet proved definitively which direction the infection travels between species. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial, which ran from 1998 to 2006, indicated complex, interwoven patterns of infection, and concluded badger culling was unlikely to be effective for the future control of bTB.”

Prof. Atkins believes that bTB in badgers is a spillover disease from cattle, rather than an endemic condition, and probably does not persist over lengthy periods. He contends that a cull could even exacerbate the problem (22).

Prof. Atkins has also said, “Bovine tuberculosis was completely eliminated from Cheshire, and from the northwestern counties which do have badger populations. That elimination took place in the 1950s. And what you’d expect according to the traditional badger ecology is that bovine tuberculosis would have stayed in the badgers – which obviously weren’t culled at that time – if there is an association between the two species, but the road traffic accident data shows that that wasn’t the case; in fact only one animal out of I think it’s 400 that were collected over two decades in Cheshire was infected with the disease, which doesn’t suggest it was endemic in that particular county.

“Farms needed to re-stock after foot-and-mouth with fresh animals, and very often they bought those animals from the southwest, which is a traditional cattle breeding area; so in County Durham, for instance, where quite a lot of cattle were slaughtered as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, cattle were brought in and it’s been shown that actually on several occasions, those cattle brought bovine tuberculosis with them into areas which previously hadn’t had it, so this was rather ironic. Almost certainly a proportion of the increase in bovine tuberculosis after 2001 is the result of that restocking after foot-and-mouth disease. I think that the ecology of the assumption that badgers are always responsible for the cattle disease has got to be reviewed.”

Our biosecurity is extremely poor. In 2011, the European Commission considered our biosecurity practices in farming so dismal that it threatened to withdraw the £32 million annual funding (12) to combat bTB. That move saw Jim Pace (the then minister) hot footing it to Brussels to plead our case. He promised more rigorous bio-security in return for the funding; but very little has changed.

These maps show the density of farms and cattle in 2008. It’s clear from the distribution patterns that the areas of the UK in which farming is most intensive correspond to those where bTB is particularly widespread.

Badgers are widespread throughout the UK as the map clearly shows yet bTB only appears an issue in areas of intensive farming.

“Defra and the NFU currently offers this non-mandatory advice to farmers:
“Cleansing and disinfection (C&D) is an important disease control measure and may help reduce the risk of infection spreading to other cattle or to other susceptible animals on your farm. Under certain conditions, M. bovis can survive in the environment for a long time, so it is good practice, and will be a requirement under notice, served by Animal Health, to cleanse and disinfect thoroughly all buildings where reactor cattle have been kept. It is particularly important to clean and disinfect any fittings or equipment that may have come into contact with sputum, faeces or milk from TB reactors.” (73)
It is not illegal to spread slurry from cattle that are under movement restrictions on a farmer’s own land. Defra tells farmers that they: “… should consider the risk of spreading the disease to other stock or wildlife”. This means that slurry containing bTB bacterium is a vector for spreading the disease not only to badgers but other cattle. M. bovis is expected to persist in slurry-treated soil for up to two years (74) & (75)

Research from Northern Ireland has suggested that excrement could aerosolise (i.e become dust particles) which could be breathed in by animals and further facilitate bTB spread (76). Slurry can also run off into waterways – and the bTB bacterium can remain active in water for up to 58 days (73) – meaning that cross contamination to neighbouring herds and wildlife could be a potential vector.”

I think the picture is clear Cattle spread bTB. Intensive farming means intensive bTB.

Claim no. 6: All the science tells us to cull.

Actually no independent scientists back the cull.

Lord Krebs of the RBCT has argued, “The scientific case is as clear as it can be: this cull is not the answer to TB in cattle. The government is cherry-picking bits of data to support its case.”

Lord Robert May, a former government Chief Scientist and President of the Royal Society, has said: “It’s very clear to me that the government’s policy does not make sense.” He added, “I have no sympathy with the decision. They are transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.”

Current government Chief Scientist Prof. Sir John Beddington has refused to back the cull. When asked if it could make a meaningful contribution to tackling TB in cattle, he replied, “I continue to engage with Defra on the evidence base concerning the development of bovine TB policy. I’m content that the evidence base, including uncertainties and evidence gaps, has been communicated effectively to ministers.”

In April 2011, Defra brought together a number of experts, and claimed they had agreed that culling badgers carried out in the right way would help to prevent the spread of bTB in cattle (2). Professor Rosie Woodroffe, of the Zoological Society of London, said, “The document simply doesn’t endorse the policy.” She also stated, “Furthermore, all the evidence shows that culling badgers increases the proportion of badgers that have TB”.

Lord Knight of Weymouth spoke in the House of Lords on 23 October 2012:

“It’s still the case that the government, perhaps too often, prefer policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policy. … The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientific experts have concluded that the policy of killing badgers to control TB in cattle will have only a small beneficial effect, if any. It’s essentially a waste of effort and money, and a distraction from the business of getting on top of a serious animal health problem that can have devastating effects on the livelihoods of farmers [Official Report, 17/10/12; col. GC514].

“The truth is that this is yet another humiliating moment for the government and for Defra, because they put prejudice and ideology before science and evidence.” (10)

On the same day, Lord Krebs spoke:

“My Lords, as has been said, bovine TB is a serious problem, and it deserves serious science to underpin policy. I don’t want to take up too much time, but I hope that your Lordships will forgive me as an individual who has been involved in this over the past 15 years and, as has been said, instigated the randomised badger culling trial and took part in the review of the evidence with Sir Bob Watson last year. It’s worth briefly repeating the facts: the long-term, large-scale culling of badgers is estimated to reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by 16% after nine years. In other words, 84% of the problem is still there. To reflect on what that means, this is not a reduction in absolute terms but actually a 16% reduction from the trend increase. So after nine years there is still more TB around than there was at the beginning; it’s just that there is 16% less than there would have been without a cull. The number is not the 30% that the NFU quoted; that is misleading – a dishonest filleting of the data. The other thing that the experts conclude is that culling makes the situation worse at the beginning, so it will take a long time to emerge into this nirvana of a 16% reduction, and 84% of the problem is still there. That’s just the background. I turn to questions that I hope the minister will answer. Last Friday we were told by the Minister of State for Food and Farming that between 500 and 800 badgers would be culled in each of the two areas. The number, thanks to rapid badger reproduction over the weekend, is now 5,530 over the two areas – a fourfold increase. I’m impressed! What this underlines is that if the policy is to cull at least 70% of the badgers, we have to know what the starting number is. This variation from just over 1,000 to more than 5,000 in the space of a few days underlines how difficult it is for us to have confidence that the government will be able to instruct the farmers to cull 70% if they don’t know the starting numbers. So my first question to the minister is, how will he assure us that these numbers are accurate? If we ask why the NFU has backed out, it’s because it was due to pay those who were going to shoot the badgers on a per-badger basis. The NFU calculated it on the basis of shooting 1,300 badgers. Suddenly it’s told, “It’s 5,500 badgers”. The farmers thought it was worth doing – but not that much. They’ve done their own cost-benefit calculation, and say that it is not worth the candle. So my second question to the minister is: in next year’s cull, who is going to pay? Are the farmers going to stump up on a per-badger basis to shoot 5,500 badgers, or are we, the taxpayer, going to pay?

“Finally and briefly, we have a pause and time to rethink. I urge the minister to gather together scientific experts and rethink the government’s strategy altogether, starting from square one.”

Given all previous Chief Scientist to Defra + Govt are openly against the cull, - Why they were all wrong and Owen Paterson’s dismissal of the same evidence is right.

No scientist outside of the government has supported the cull and have spoken out about it condeming it (14)signed by 28 top scientists all experts in their field .

This letter appeared in the Observer on Sunday 14 October 2012

Culling badgers could increase the problem of TB in cattle
Badger culling risks becoming a costly distraction from nationwide TB control

Bovine tuberculosis is a serious problem for UK farmers, deserving the highest standard of evidence-based management. The government's TB-control policy for England includes licensing farmers to cull badgers. As scientists with expertise in managing wildlife and wildlife diseases, we believe the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it.

Even if such increases do not materialise, the government predicts only limited benefits, insufficient to offset the costs for either farmers or taxpayers. Unfortunately, the imminent pilot culls are too small and too short term to measure the impacts of licensed culling on cattle TB before a wider roll-out of the approach. The necessarily stringent licensing conditions mean that many TB-affected areas of England will remain ineligible for such culling. We are concerned that badger culling risks becoming a costly distraction from nationwide TB control. We recognise the importance of eradicating bovine TB and agree that this will require tackling the disease in badgers. Unfortunately, culling badgers as planned is very unlikely to contribute to TB eradication. We therefore urge the government to reconsider its strategy.

Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS

University of Cambridge and president of the Zoological Society of London, and 30 others (see observer.co.uk/letters) Professor Mike Begon, University of Liverpool ; Professor Tim Blackburn, Zoological Society of London ; Professor John Bourne CBE, former Chairman, Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB; Professor William Sutherland, University of Cambridge; Professor Terry Burke, University of Sheffield; Dr Chris Cheeseman, formerly Food & Environment Research Agency; Professor Sarah Cleaveland, University of Glasgow; Professor Tim Clutton Brock FRS, University of Cambridge ; Professor Andrew Dobson, Princeton University; Dr Matthew Fisher, Imperial College London; Dr Trent Garner, Zoological Society of London; Professor Stephen Harris, University of Bristol; Professor Daniel Haydon, University of Glasgow; Professor Peter Hudson FRS, Pennsylvania State University; Professor Kate Jones, University College London; Professor Matt Keeling, University of Warwick; Professor Richard Kock, Royal Veterinary College; Professor Lord Krebs Kt FRS, University of Oxford; Dr Karen Laurenson, Frankfurt Zoological Society; Professor Sir John Lawton CBE FRS, former chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council; Professor Simon Levin, Princeton University; Professor Georgina Mace FRS, University College London; Professor Jonna Mazet, University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine; Professor Lord May OM AC Kt FRS, University of Oxford; Professor Graham Medley, University of Warwick; Professor E.J. Milner-Gulland, Imperial College London; Professor Denis Mollison, former Independent Scientific Auditor to the Randomised Badger Culling Trial; Professor Pej Rohani, University of Michigan; Dr Tony Sainsbury, Zoological Society of London; Professor Claudio Sillero, University of Oxford; Professor Rosie Woodroffe, Zoological Society of London

Claim No. 7: The EU condemns the UK’s control of policy, and confirms the money given is not for badgers.

Stricter measures to prevent cows from spreading bTB to other cows are the only way to combat the disease effectively. As a result of stringent practices put in place in the 1960s, the disease was virtually eradicated in England.

The EU has contributed £32 million to the UK to combat TB in cattle, but doesn’t give funds for badger culling:(5)

“The Commission provides substantial financial support (5) to the approved UK bovine TB eradication programme. For 2012, €31.2 million was allocated to implement a rapid eradication strategy. There is no EU financial support provided for the culling of badgers.”

In the first half of 2011, EU inspectors found that the removal of cattle with TB was below the target of 90% in 10 days, and more than 1,000 cattle had still to be removed after 30 days (8). In May 2011, 3,300 TB tests were overdue, and “many” calf passports – used to track movements – were incomplete.

Missed targets on the rapid removal of cattle with TB, following up missed tests, and “weaknesses in cleaning and disinfection at farm, vehicle, market and slaughterhouse levels, exacerbated by lack of adequate supervision” were all seen by EU inspectors as increasing the risk of the spread of TB among herds. The EU inspectors also found that only 56% of disease report forms had been completed on time, with the authorities blaming a lack of resources. In addition, “Local authority surveys provided evidence that some cattle farmers may have been illegally swapping ear tags, i.e. retaining TB-positive animals in their herds and sending less productive cows to slaughter in their place.”
The government accepted most of these failings.
In the view of veterinary surgeon Prof. John Bourne, stricter measures to stop cows spreading TB amongst themselves are the only way to combat the disease effectively: “Despite some improvements, the government is still going nowhere near far enough with bio-security,” he said. “It’s not badgers that spread the disease throughout the country; it is cattle.” On that, we are all agreed.
Tougher bio-security measures were introduced in January 2013, and we look forward to seeing the results of these before any further action is taken.

Claim no. 8: We have stopped perturbation

Given that the disease cannot be contained, a cull will, inevitably, only spread infection over a wider area, and outside the cull zone. This is known as perturbation. The effect on farmers in the pertrubation zonne will see bTb increase by 29%

Perturbation can only be prevented by hard boundaries and short culling periods.

Al lactating creatures – including rats, deer and squirrels, as well as domestic dogs and cats – carry bTB, and culling for a period exceeding five days will lead to an increase in the spread of the disease.

Against scientific advice, the proposed culling period has been extended to six weeks, and in the absence of hard boundaries much of the wildlife will move out of the cull zones during its operation.

The government has said that rivers and canals, and busy roads such as motorways, form hard boundaries – but badgers (along with foxes and other wild animals) cross motorways every night – and most survive. Badgers are also amazing swimmers; they can swim across large rivers, and against the current. So neither motorways nor rivers can be regarded as hard boundaries!



Defra agree that the best possible result of this cull in 10 years time will be 16% drop from the increase - in other words an 84% increase in btb. BTB will spread extensively outside the hotspot. 40% of farms in the hotspot areas do not have bTB. We know all wild lactating mammals carry bTB and the disturbance from culling will cause them to carry btb far and wide.

Claim no. 9: Free shooting is the best way forward.

Shooting badgers is a complex procedure, and the fact that they’re low-slung creatures means that bullets with a trajectory of one mile must be used.

Arrangements for the cull require the shooting to take place at night, which cannot be either safe (for local residents, for example) or effective, given the reduced visibility.

1) Night time shooting is a high risk but well established activity which is supported by best practice guidance.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation sets out best practice guidelines on night time shooting and these are included in the following guidance

“As a matter of courtesy, inform local residents who you are and where you will be shooting,together with your approximate starting and finishing times”.

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/lamping.cfm

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/lamping.cfm

The Deer Initiative sets out best practice guidelines for night time shooting with respect to the Deer Act and states:

“Anyone likely to be in the vicinity should be given advance warning and adjacent occupiers should be informed”

http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/uploads/guides/92.pdf

http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/uploads/guides/92.pdf

The guidance for the planned badger cull outlines that the cull zones be kept confidential hence they are ignoring best practice. There has been at least one other death.

This statement is taken from a defra publication - this is NOT humane
The use of a trained dog to follow a scent trail, with the aim of locating (without physically coming into contact with) an injured badger, does not require a licence and can be carried out under an exemption provided in the Hunting Act 2004. Any dog used in this way should be kept under close control on a leash when following a trail and, if shooting from or near a vehicle, should be kept in the vehicle unless actually being used to locate an injured badger. Normally only a single dog should be used for this purpose (the exemption under the Hunting Act does not permit the use of more than two dogs). Use of a dog-muzzle should be considered. (79)

Claim no. 10: No science, no trial; 130,000 dead badgers, no data collection and rising costs.

There is no intention to collect any data or science from these trials. If the culling is rolled out across the ten initial cull zones, 130,000 badgers will die.

The costs of last year’s projected cull, which as we know didn’t go ahead, are shown below. No figure for policing has yet been given, but is likely to be in excess of £500,000, and may be as much as £1 million, per cull zone. If the cull is rolled out across the country in 2013, the bill for taxpayers will reach between £10 million and £20 million; and costs will undoubtedly soar once culling actually starts.

Not only that. If this year’s cull does go ahead, it will undoubtedly exacerbate the problem; bTb won’t be eradicated from farms, and as the RBCT clearly stated, culling increases the incidence of the disease in badgers. The project is surely not viable on any level.

Actual costs to date Cost
Surveying the 2 cull zone £750,000
Natural England £300,000
Humane consultation £95,000
Day of action £62,000
Hair/DNA test £260,00

Shooting foxes has long been a nocturnal activity; but foxes live above ground and only have simple earths, in which they shelter their cubs. Badgers, however, have complex setts, some of which extend to almost mile in length; and a badger that has been shot and injured may return to its sett and die a slow, painful death. There’s no reason to assume that marksmen who have spent one day learning about the anatomy of badgers will be able to carry out the task either humanely or safely, and policing costs will be prohibitive.

Senior police officers have told the government (23) that private security companies will need to be drafted in, to prevent the culls being overrun by animal rights activists.

The two forces involved have told civil servants at Defra that they haven’t the manpower to cope, and believe the operation is an impossible one:

“We welcome this like a hole in the head,” a source close to Gloucestershire Constabulary said. “The amount of policing that’s going to have to go into this is like a nightmare.”

Both forces are understood to be unhappy about having to divert officers from their normal duties, following recent budget cuts.

Gloucestershire Constabulary is currently discussing these issues with Defra. A senior figure familiar with the negotiations said the operation would place a “massive strain” on the force’s already stretched resources, and involve drafting in hundreds of additional officers from other countries.

“We’re expecting Defra to pay the full costs,” he said. “It’s going to be millions. The police are not Defra’s private security service.”

“Defra will meet the additional costs incurred by Gloucestershire and Avon & Somerset constabularies to police this summer’s two badger cull pilots,” she said.
“The additional costs are likely to be down to extra staffing.

Claim no 11: There is no oral badger vaccine because it breaks down in the stomach and is unavailable.

Well that’s not true in New Zealand they have used oral vaccines and and they work as do they here. Trinity University under the and working but safety tests being carried out - doesn’t dissolve in stomach and is perfect - University banned from talking to us now

Eamonn Gormley a senior research associate at Trinity University in Ireland has an impressive background (46) , who led the research at University College Dublin's school of agriculture, said: "Our study has shown that oral vaccination can be effective in badgers and that it does work. (44)
The vaccine works and is currently going through safety tests with the VMD at AVHLA in Weybridge. Oral vaccines will be ready by 2015 so we can vaccinate now and use them in 18 months time

Claim no 12: You cannot vaccinate

Yes you can vaccinate badgers now, you can use oralaccine in 2015 and by 2013 you willl be able to vaccinate cattle.

After ten years of culling badgers in the UK, based on figures from DEFRA and a proper reading of the RBCT (Randomised Badger Cull Trial) report, as opposed to cherry-picking, it can be seen that even the small drop in infection of 16 per cent claimed by advocates of the cull is not a real expectation. Lord Krebs (author of the RBCT) himself reminds us that the figure of 16 per cent is merely a lessening of the rate of increase of prevalence of the disease. So after 10 years, farmers will in fact not see an improvement. And the long term prediction is even worse. Thus the proposed cull, is, as agreed by the whole scientific community, nothing short of 'crazy'.
In addition the cull will alienate farmers from the public, who are horrified at this unethical killing, which places no value on a wild animal whatsoever. From a supposed Ministry of the Environment, this is a disgrace.
The prognosis for farms on the periphery of the cull zone is grim indeed. They will very likely see bTB increase by up to 30%. DEFRA are (ironically) talking about vaccinating badgers in these zones, but Lord Krebs warns that vaccination only works with a badger population that is stable. This is not going to be the case next to an area where there are being randomly shot.


Vaccination is the obvious way to address bTB in cattle and badgers. Vaccination is the only sustainable and effective solution A paper published by our governments science laboratories at Weybridge shows that vaccinating adult badgers protects the cubs against bTB. (9) Whilst adults are not cured the symptoms are reduced .
This process over time would mean that herd immunity would be obtained in the badger populations. You would not be displacing any family units and would avoid any perturbation and any further spread as seen in the randomised badger culling trials.
The scientists behind the new vaccine have been working with the Veterinary Laboratory Agency in Weybridge, Surrey, to test it on badgers and found that it was effective at conveying immunity upon the animals.

It will cost £51 per hectare for vaccinations, an oral vaccine is available by 2015. It is 73% effective (in humans BCG is only 50% effective ), and it was found that 75% of badgers were TB free even in endemic areas. (78)

Dr Eamonn Gormley, who led the research at University College Dublin's school of agriculture, said: "Our study has shown that oral vaccination can be effective in badgers and that it does work.

The field trial to test the BCG vaccine in wild badgers has seen scientists catch, tag and vaccinate hundreds in Co Kilkenny over the past three years.
Tests with the vaccine have been carried out in captured animals for over a decade. In Kilkenny the vaccine is squirted into the mouths of sedated badgers. For the future it is hoped badgers will self-vaccinate by eating bait containing the BCG vaccine. Perhaps 80 per cent of badgers would need to be vaccinated in order for the strategy to succeed.
The test have shown the vaccine is effective and doesn’t break down in the stomach.
Ireland’s bovine TB programme costs taxpayers around €60 million each year, part of a TB-control effort that began in the 1950s.

Gormley says there was “a gradual realisation that the problem in cattle would never be solved without addressing TB in badgers.”

The European Commission has now laid out a ten-year plan for the legal establishment of vaccination for cattle. This is not, as Paterson and Heath are so fond of telling us, bad news. Cattle vaccination could be here in 2023 if the Government acts now, to take up this proposal as an absolute priority. Time and money spent on killing badgers is counter-productive, because, although this looks like 'doing something right now', it is something which will not solve the problem. With badger culling, we arrive at 2023 with a crippled farming industry.

Team Badger will assist anyone in the cullzone to vaccinate their badgers now instead of culling. This will not disrupt the badgers; they will stay in situ, preventing emigration and immigration, and protecting the TB free status of the farmer's environment. A herd immunity inthe badgers will be built up over about four years, as infected animals disappear, which prevents bTB from being passed to them from then on, and eliminates the 'reservoir' of disease. Infinitely more sensible than killing off the healthy badgers and risking an influx of unhealthy animals.
Team badger is committed to helping both cattle and badgers in this campaign, and solving the problem of TB for farmers.The team is composed of animal campaigners, and its work is directed towards the welfare of all animals. We urge the Government and the NFU to abandon this awful plan immediately and clear a path to all parties working together towards a viable solution for farmers.

VACCINATE VACCINATE VACCINATE -
Lets do it ....

The cull is unethical, unscientific and unsustainable

References
1. Bovine TB Time Line. http://www.save-me.org.uk/BAD_BTB%20_overview_timeline.html

2. Randomised Badger Culling Trial. Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on Cattle TB. http://www.save-me.org.uk/images/pdf/ARCHIVE%20DEFRA%20SIG%20REPORT%20.pdf

3. Estimates of badger population sizes in the West Gloucestershire and West Somerset pilot areas. A report to Natural England - 22 February 2013. http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/files/population-badger-pilot-areas.pdf

4. Estimating the risk of cattle exposure to tuberculosis posed by wild deer relative to badgers in England and Wales. http://www.save-me.org.uk/images/pdf/Deer%20TB%20QRA%20Deer.pdf

5.Statement from the European Commission regarding an article in the Mail On Sunday on 21 October.
There is no EU financial support provided for the culling of badgers. http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/press_releases/2012/pr1245_en.html

6.Parliamentary briefing paper - Science & Environment.
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05873.pdf

7. The Cattle Book 2008 Descriptive statistics of cattle numbers in Great Britain on 1 June 2008: Density Maps http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13572-cattlebook-2008-090804.pdf

8. European Commission Audit - audit was carried out in the UK from 5-16th September 2011
TB Eradication Programme http://www.save-me.org.uk/images/pdf/MRFIN%202011-6057%20UK-3.pdf

9. Vaccination reduces the risk of unvaccinated badger cubs testing tuberculosis positive. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-12-vaccination-unvaccinated-badger-cubs-tuberculosis.html

10. Conversation in the House of Lords where Lord Krebs and Lord Knight of Weymouth - Hansard http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/121023-0001.htm

11. Bovine tuberculosis infection in wild mammals in the South-West region of England: A survey of prevalence and a semi-quantitative assessment of the relative risks to cattle http://www.save -me.org.uk/images/pdf/DelahayEtAl_WildMammalPrevSWEngland_VJ_173(2007)287%20copy.pdf

12. Final report of an audit carried out in the United Kingdom from 5th-16th September 2011 In order to evaluate the operation of the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Programme. http://www.save-me.org.uk/images/pdf/MRFIN%202011-6057%20UK-3.pdf

13. TB skin test questioned after false results. http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/05/02/2013/137488/tb-skin-test-questioned-after-false-results.htm#.URD1fq2kidE

14. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Bovine TB - Key conclusions from the meeting of scientific experts. Held at Defra on 4th April 2011 http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/documents/bovinetb-scientificexperts-110404.pdf

15. Illegal in the US to feed deer and cattle together for risk of bovine Tb transfer. http://www.save-me.org.uk/images/pdf/Deer%20TB%20QRA%20Deer.pdf

16. Scientist writes an open letter condeming the cull. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2012/oct/14/letters-observer

17. Despite no badgers having yet being killed under official sanction in Northern Ireland, as Ms O'Neill has acknowledged, the annual herd incidence has almost halved, from nearly 10% in 2002 to just over 5% on 30 September 2011. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2011-11-28.7.25

18. Cattle movements the most significant factor in spread of bovine TB.

19. Stress prevents immune systems from working.
A 3rd more females (in buffalo adult females stressed out the yearling females) and links with human stats http://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-2-21-buffalo-tb-21399.html

20. Bovine tuberculosis in Europe from the perspective of an officially tuberculosis free country: trade, surveillance and diagnostics. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21439740

21. Durham University Paper

http://www.save-me.org.uk/images/pdf/Bovine%20tuberculosis%20and%20badgers%20in%20Britain,%20relevance%20of%20the%20past,%20Durham%20Uni%20%202013%20copy.pdf
22 Recording of Professor Atkins from Durham University http://ihrrblog.org/2013/02/14/bovine-tb-risk-in-britain-past-and-present/