# Badger Cull



## MrJsk

It is really sad and makes me so angry. I am 100% against this!!

. I would understand the reasons for it (although would still be against it) if it was going to reduce the numbers of cattle infected with bTB but it's not. There is evidence to say that a badger cull will not have any affect on the amount of cattle found to be infected.. which to me, says that it is just a barbaric load of nonsense to go and cull badgers. :blahblah:

What is everybody else's views??


----------



## SiUK

I agree, if the evidence of benefit was there and sound science then could agree with it to a point. However the evidence seems sketchy even the guy from NFU was unable to demonstrate it when he was being grilled on the radio the other day.


----------



## MrJsk

"Following a ten year study in which 10,000 badgers were trapped and culled to establish whether localised culling of badgers helps to reduce bTB, the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) who carried out the experiment concluded that ‘badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain’." Why are they going to cull badgers? l League Against Cruel Sports

^^^ Surely that is enough to show that there is no point in culling badgers for the reason of preventing the spread of tb to cattle


----------



## feorag

I'm dead against it!

There's just not enough evidence to prove to me that it's necessary. Deer can also carry TB, but are they being culled? And of course don't forget people - they carry it too, maybe we should all be tested and culled if we test positive?

To be honest, as much as I'm a true carnivore (although I would like to be a vegetarian, I just like meat too much :blush: ) I would happily give up cow's milk and beef rather than see badgers killed unnecessarily.


----------



## Crownan

Uh oh.......

*Waits for the veggie/vegan brigade.


----------



## kingsnake

Bovine TB
Try this link to a more sane and balanced view......


----------



## Rogue665

Its disgusting and its because of lazy ass farmers who want to sell in bulk and can't afford to look after their own business and vaccinate their cattle...the same kind of farmers who bitch about fox's killing their live stocks when their the lazy ass irresponsible people who wont even put up decent fences.


----------



## Pirate7

It's an absolute joke. 

The science has shown from the ISG that the cull will not work, just make the situation worse. The perturbation effect is going to occur and there will be a wide spread outbreak of bTB in the UK and we can blame the scum Cameron and his bunch of thugs, and the NFU for the potential threat and maybe increase of bTB. They are using badgers as a scape goat, nothing more. Can't believe natural england has allowed the persecution of protected species. :bash:

There is a video which has been released showing that farmers are not carrying out correct bio-security measures at cattle markets, wonder what other bio-security measures they're not carrying out on their own farms. They should be tackling irresponsible farmers and not badgers, there are many other methods to control tb... Look at Wales, they've got a vaccination programme going on at the moment. Not that i've been able to find any evidence in what the outcome is - but it has been proven as said before that the cull will not work, don't know what this crap government are trying to achieve, the outcome isn't going to change... especially as the ISG's cull was much more controlled and scientifically valid. 

Cattle Market Investigation - YouTube


The ISG report is below. 
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/isg/report/final_report.pdf

Any sabs reading this... Thank you and good luck!


----------



## feorag

What I'm finding hard to believe is that Badgers are the only wild animal in this country to be protected by an Act of Parliament!!! :crazy:

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 makes it an offence for anyone to kill or injure a badger, or cause damage a badger’s sett – punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 or even prison.

So how does that work???


----------



## Khonsu

This is what we like, fair & balanced debate, good old RFUK


----------



## Mynki

feorag said:


> I'm dead against it!
> 
> There's just not enough evidence to prove to me that it's necessary. Deer can also carry TB, *but are they being culled?* And of course don't forget people - they carry it too, maybe we should all be tested and culled if we test positive?


Yes deer are constantly being culled. It's also worth noting that every deer shot in the UK should be checked by the deer stalker who killed it for various notifiable diseases including tb.

Once found the disease is then reported to the relevent animal health inspectorate. How do you think people know that TB is recorded in deer populations.  

Form what I can see the evidence against the cull is equally as dubious as that for it. The cull is only to see if shooting with trained marksmen is viable also. If it is, then more will be shot throught the country and only then will the results of TB infections be recorded, so it will be some time before anybody can say if it has worked well or not with any authority or credibility.


----------



## Khonsu

Rogue665 said:


> Its disgusting and its because of lazy ass farmers who want to sell in bulk and can't afford to look after their own business and vaccinate their cattle...the same kind of farmers who bitch about fox's killing their live stocks when their the lazy ass irresponsible people who wont even put up decent fences.


I'm not standing up for UK farmers & to be honest I think you have a very limited knowledge of what farming actually entails but I think you'll find the EU law does not allow UK farmers to vaccinate thier cattle


----------



## KingElf

feorag said:


> What I'm finding hard to believe is that Badgers are the only wild animal in this country to be protected by an Act of Parliament!!! :crazy:
> 
> The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 makes it an offence for anyone to kill or injure a badger, or cause damage a badger’s sett – punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 or even prison.
> 
> So how does that work???


because the government are hypocritical [email protected]*ers :bash:


----------



## gazz

feorag said:


> What I'm finding hard to believe is that Badgers are the only wild animal in this country to be protected by an Act of Parliament!!! :crazy:
> 
> The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 makes it an offence for anyone to kill or injure a badger, or cause damage a badger’s sett – punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 or even prison.
> 
> So how does that work???


Coz if you have money you can change the rules:whistling2:.

I'm not convinced bangers are to blame for the spread of TB. The TB hot spots gloucestershire, Devon, Cornwall, Kent'ect and timing of there re-arrival in the UK and the TB out brake in the UK, seems to me to fit with the Wild boar being the carriers more than badgers.


----------



## Spaceisdeep

Its called _Bovine_ TB for a very good reason

perhaps cull the dairy farmers and their bad farming practices first :whistling2:


----------



## Mynki

Spaceisdeep said:


> Its called _Bovine_ TB for a very good reason
> 
> perhaps cull the dairy farmers and their bad farming practices first :whistling2:


Society is the problem, not dairy farmers. People want to pay as little as possible for their weekly food shop, the supermarkets want to drive down prices and force their suppliers to cut costs as a result, hence modern day intensive farming techniques.

Anyone who buys dairy products from a supply chain featuring these practises is partly to blame.


----------



## The Wanderer

Professor Sir Patrick Bateson was one of the many animal experts to voice his concerns about the cull at the time.
He joined with other professors from leading universities and zoological institutions across the UK in October last year to urge the Government to reconsider its plans for a badger cull.
Speaking to the News he said: “It’s a panic measure driven by the argument that we have to do something, however stupid.
*“Frankly, other causes of the diseases should be investigated first. A striking fact is that in the middle of the area where most infections of cattle occur, many farms have never had an occurrence of bovine TB.
“Understanding why would save a great deal of time and money spent in other directions.”*

Cambridge experts debate whether badger cull will cure bovine TB | Cambridge City News, Cambridge Local News Stories & Latest Headlines

Sounds like poor husbandry could be to blame rather than Mr Badger


----------



## kettykev

If it's down to intensive stocking and poor husbandry then how do wild deer become infected. They are free roaming and can choose to eat any number of wild plants and herbs.
It is called Bovine TB because obviously it was found in cattle, this is due to the fact that we keep cattle and interact with them, who would have known that Badgers were infected. People saying that badgers won't get "Bovine TB" is like saying that English people won't get German measles.


----------



## The Wanderer

kettykev said:


> If it's down to intensive stocking and poor husbandry then how do wild deer become infected. They are free roaming and can choose to eat any number of wild plants and herbs.
> It is called Bovine TB because obviously it was found in cattle, this is due to the fact that we keep cattle and interact with them, who would have known that Badgers were infected. People saying that badgers won't get "Bovine TB" is like saying that English people won't get German measles.


 Why then do some farms within highly infected areas not have a single case ? I think that is quite strange. Good point re- wild deer.


----------



## feorag

Mynki said:


> Yes deer are constantly being culled. It's also worth noting that every deer shot in the UK should be checked by the deer stalker who killed it for various notifiable diseases including tb.
> 
> Once found the disease is then reported to the relevent animal health inspectorate. How do you think people know that TB is recorded in deer populations.


Obviously I phrased my point wrongly, although it made perfect sense to me, because the discussion is about badgers being culled because they carry TB, not to control their population.

Of course I know that deer are constantly being culled, but as a means of population control, not because they carry TB - that was my point!


----------



## The Wanderer

Badger cull called off in Gloucestershire | Environment | theguardian.com

Good news


----------



## Mynki

feorag said:


> Obviously I phrased my point wrongly, although it made perfect sense to me, because the discussion is about badgers being culled because they carry TB, not to control their population.
> 
> Of course I know that deer are constantly being culled, but as a means of population control, not because they carry TB - that was my point!


I know the point you were making but actually there are instances of deer populations being culled because of TB. 

If deer in an area are found to be affected then resident populations are culled to prevent the disease spreading. It's just not widely publicised. The same applies to any other notifiable disease such as foot and mouth and blue tongue.


----------



## Spaceisdeep

The Wanderer said:


> Sounds like poor husbandry could be to blame rather than Mr Badger


I live on a working dairy farm so see poor husbandry first hand most days

TB hotspots are found in areas where the bedrock does not provide the minerals required for healthy, functioning immune system. In particular selenium and its relationship with the thyroid and its response to the TB virus

*Memorandum submitted by Dr Helen Fullerton*

BOVINE TB
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Evidence suggests that trace element deficiencies induce a susceptibility to M.bovis, which can be corrected by restoring the nutrients to depleted soils, particularly in the hot spot areas that occur on soil types intrinsically deficient. 

Furthermore, inadequate trace element intakes are a risk factor for false negatives—cattle that do not respond to the TB skin test because their circulating lymphocytes are suppressed, a condition known as anergy. These are silent carriers, healthy in themselves, but whose undetectable infectivity could explain the persistence of the hot spots. Suppressive factors include zinc, selenium and cobalt deficiency. Adequate trace element intakes would lift the suppression and allow the silent carrier to be identified by the skin test.

1. TRACE ELEMENT DEFICIENCIES 
1.1 I propose that susceptibility to infection, and not exposure to it, is the critical factor that makes cattle, and also badgers, go down with TB. If the animals can be made resistant to infection, they will overcome the challenge of the M.bovis bacilli. Resistance is primarily undermined by trace element deficiencies and its loss is precipitated by stress: uncomfortable cubicles, lack of bedding, standing in slurried yards, bullying at the feeders, transport, markets etc.

1.2 The animal immune system depends on optimum blood levels of five trace elements, zinc, selenium, cobalt, copper and iodine. In UK cattle these are likely to be deficient due to their relentless extraction from the soil by intensive cropping, with total disregard for the need to put them back. In addition, the "hot spots" in SW England where TB has resisted eradication, and the areas to which it is spreading due to cattle mobility, are located on rock types intrinsically low in trace elements: limestone/chalk, red sandstone and granite. 

1.3 There is abundant evidence that trace elements confer health protection on farm animals. Increasing their intake eliminates respiratory diseases, mastitis, foot infections, infertility and failure of calves to thrive. This has been the experience of Danny Goodwin-Jones, Trace Element Services, whose protocol for soil micro-nutrient restoration has rescued farmers up and down UK from problems that vets could not solve. There is also anecdotal evidence that trace element treated farms are free of TB, while their neighbours are going down with it.

2. TRACE ELEMENT ACTIVITIES AND AVAILABILITIES 
2.1 Under pressure from pharmaceutical interests, the role of trace elements is dismissed. This is very damaging, because the scientific basis for their activation of immune resistance is well established. Zinc and cobalt. Numerous enzymes depend on zinc for their function. Every cell requires it for cell division and differentiation, including the white blood cells of the immune system. Together with cobalt, zinc is needed by the rumen microflora for the synthesis of vitamin B12. Without adequate B12, the cow's liver cannot convert the acids produced by rumen bacteria into glucose for her metabolic and physical energy. Nor can she defend herself against intestinal parasites. Animals—and thus both cattle and badgers—are made susceptible to TB if they carry a parasite burden. Examination of TB-infected and uninfected badgers showed that only those harbouring parasites were TB-infected[1] 

2.2 Zinc and cobalt become unavailable at the raised pH of limestone/chalk soils, particularly where ancient grassland has been ploughed for arable and the limestone brought to the surface. Over-limed soils or those heavily dressed with nitrochalk are also at risk from Zn/Co unavailability.

2.3 Selenium as an anti-oxidant and co-factor of the enzyme glutathione peroxidase, activates the "innate" immune system, the first stage in the battle against the pathogen. It also activates the second stage, the "cell-mediated immune response", by stimulating the proliferation of T-helper 1 (Th1) lymphocytes that fight intracellular pathogens such as the TB mycobacteria.

2.4 Selenium is desperately low in virtually all UK soils, and as admitted by MAFF, its intake is half what it should be in the human population, due both to removal by cropping and to leaching by the sulphate in acid rain and ammonium sulphate fertilisers.

2.5 Copper. One of its important roles is as an activator of the enzyme Cu, Zn-superoxide dismutase. A TB-challenged immune system produces nitric oxide for its defence, but if due to copper or zinc deficiency, the enzyme does not work properly, nitric oxide is produced in excess, giving rise to an uncontrolled release of its free radical derivatives. These induce an over reactive immune response that not only destroys the pathogen, but also host tissue, and is responsible for the lesions that devastate the lungs of TB-infected cows.

2.6 Iodine as is well known, is essential to thyroid function.

2.7 The thyroid plays a unique role in TB resistance, activating macrophages to mediate the innate immune response. This was researched over 50 years ago by Max Lurie, Professor of experimental pathology at the University of Pennsylvania. In those days there was extensive research into TB resistance, and Lurie discovered that intramuscular injections of the thyroid hormone T3 into rabbits prevented TB onset and could partially reverse an existing disease, whereas the induction of hypothyroidism accelerated the disease[2]However, Lurie's work was forgotten. Scientists lost interest in stimulating resistance with the advent of antibiotics. Now as we struggle with the consequences of their over-use, it should be remembered that all five elements are needed for a properly working thyroid, and here we have another pathway conferring resistance to TB. 

3. TRACE ELEMENT RESTORATION

3.1 Soil trace elements are restored following soil analysis and stock health appraisal. Optimum levels for total selenium should be 0.8-1.2 ppm. Goodwin-Jones finds they are seldom more than 0.3, and frequently undetectable. Available zinc should be 12-15 ppm, and is often as low as 3.0. Available cobalt should be 1-3.0 ppm, copper 10-12 ppm and total iodine 6-8 ppm[3]The trace elements are mixed in the hopper with fertiliser or seaweed and spread evenly by the farmer. Soil restoration means the cattle take up the nutrients in their most available form. The widely used mineral licks, boluses and injections are only band-aids. 

3.2 It can be anticipated that badgers also will become TB-resistant through the raised trace element content in the worms and beetles of their diet.

4. THE IRISH EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SURVEY: BASING POLICY ON FLAWED RESEARCH

4.1 MAFF followed by Defra have long taken the stance that trace element deficiencies are irrelevant. They were supported in this view by the Independent Husbandry Panel (IHP). The IHP was set up to consider the husbandry factors that might influence TB susceptibility. Unfortunately their careful assessment relied heavily on the results of an epidemiological survey commissioned by the Dublin Veterinary College TB Investigation Unit. This covered 1,985 Irish herds and its object was to ascertain whether the blood levels of copper, selenium and iodine influenced the incidence of TB reactors. Zinc and cobalt levels, crucial to TB resistance were not monitored. The two researchers found no apparent correlation between Se, Cu and I blood levels and the tuberculin test results[4] 

4.2 However, when I scrutinised the data it was obvious that all the 1,985 herds were either deficient, low or marginal in selenium, thereby contributing to the TB breakdowns[5]This was not surprising since the incidence of TB in the Irish Republic is comparable to that of the SW England hot spots, and Irish soils are even more depleted in selenium than UK soils. What is inexplicable is the failure of the researchers to understand their own results, and the role of stress in an individual cow, triggering infection from susceptibility.

4.3 The units and corresponding scales used by Irish vets (iu/g Hb), are different to those used in UK (iu/ml PCV). An unfamiliarity with the Irish units may explain why the IHP failed to spot the selenium deficiencies, and why they advised the Government that differences in TB resistance could only be genetic[6]giving Defra every excuse to dismiss the role of trace elements in immune protection. My letters to the IHP Chairman and to the two researchers went unanswered.


----------



## Spaceisdeep

5. FALSE POSITIVES: A CASE OF IMMUNITY? 

5.1 Studies have shown it is difficult for an infected animal to transmit to others. In one trial when groups of two reactor steers were confined with one attested steer in 10 loose houses for 12 months, only four of the challenged animals were found at slaughter to be infected[7]The other six had presumably acquired immunity. Yet Defra deny that cattle can develop TB immunity. The Independent Scientific Group (ISG) did indeed raise the question, commenting: "it is unclear whether or not cattle can resolve infection with M.bovis, and if so, whether such animals are detected by TB testing procedures"[8]The answer may lie in the high level of false positives diagnosed by the TB skin test. Some 8-12% of UK reactors are shown at post mortem not to have been infected.[9] In the Anglesey outbreak September 2003, 20 reactors were diagnosed in a herd of 160 sucklers, of which five heifers and a bullock were confirmed, and 13 sucklers and a bull were false positives, unnecessarily slaughtered. The much-touted interferon- (IFN) test is at present unacceptable because it diagnoses even more false positives than the skin test

5.2 False positives are mainly ascribed to environmental mycobacteria. Huge numbers of these inhabit soil, water, herbage and the digestive tracts of herbivores, and occasionally a species has been found to sensitise cattle to tuberculin. But I suggest that false positives are identifying animals that have mounted a cell mediated immune response, conferring an immunity which neither the skin test nor the IFN test can distinguish from infection.

6. FALSE NEGATIVES : THE SILENT CARRIER AND HOW TO IDENTIFY IT

6.1 False negatives are cattle that do not respond to the skin test, but are identified by lung lesions as carriers of infections when they eventually come to be slaughtered. They are "silent carriers" who, although healthy themselves, can infect the susceptible or pass it on by maternal transmission. It is thought that about 10% of those tested are false negatives, but this is probably an underestimate. The cause of the non-responsiveness is a suppression of the circulating Th1 lymphocytes and hence of the inflammatory reaction at the injection site, a condition known as anergy. There is also a reduction in the interferon- which these cells produce, so that the IFN- test in this respect is no better than the skin test. Finally the defensive nitric oxide produced by macrophages is reduced. This means (a) that the TB bacillus persists, protected from nitric oxide's lethal free radical derivatives, and (b) since there is no immune over-reaction that destroys host tissue, the cow can live for years in good health, a long term and undetectable reservoir of infection.

6.2 Suppressive agents giving rise to chronic—as opposed to temporary—anergy, include malnutrition, secondary infections, intestinal parasites, zinc deficiency, corticosteroids and stress[10]Recent research explains the suppressive role of zinc deficiency. Adequate levels of serum zinc activate a molecular cascade that propagates to the nucleus, stimulating DNA sequences specific for lymphocyte proliferation[11]Hence where zinc is deficient, the Th1 lymphocytes do not multiply to induce an immune reaction.

6.3 MAFF have argued that silent carriers are a minute fraction of the cattle population as evidenced by the small number diagnosed at the abattoir. This assertion was disproved by McIlroy et al. who carefully dissected the lungs of reactors which had tested negative the year before and found that the lesions were often minute, and would have been missed in routine inspection[12] 

6.4 I propose that irrespective of any contribution by infected badgers, silent carriers are the prime cause for the persistence of the hot spots in SW England, as also in Ireland, and contribute to the spread to other areas. Since there are no badgers on Anglesey, is there a silent carrier, imported from the mainland? Although soils are nutrient deficient, the farmer's husbandry avoids stress. But note it was only the young stock, five heifers and a bullock that were confirmed positives. Was susceptibility triggered by stress eg at weaning?

6.5 It is obviously urgent to remove the silent carriers. I suggest that if trace element deficiencies in the cattle are corrected, the suppressive effects of zinc and selenium deficiencies on lymphocyte proliferation, and of cobalt (B12) deficiency on parasite overload would be lifted and the silent carrier identified by the skin test. We should be warned that unless this is done, a reservoir of infection will persist in the old and in new hot spots, far more potent than any from the badger. Carriers eat from the same mangers, dropping saliva and mucous, breathe out aerosols in the same cubicle house air as their companions, putting at risk the susceptible. And despite the proposed mandatory pre- and post movement testing, the silent carrier will escape detection and carry the disease to other herds. 

7. THE THORNBURY BADGER CLEARANCE 1975-1981 
7.1 Recently the Thornbury badger clearance has been quoted as irrefutable evidence for-badger to-cattle transmission. 1975-1981 badgers were totally cleared from 104 sq kilometres centred on Thornbury, Avon. Setts were gassed with hydrocyanic acid and recolonisation prevented by further gassing until 1981, after which it was allowed to proceed. The 104 herds in the area were thereafter free of TB until 1992. The decline of the disease, in step with badger clearance was studied by Clifton-Hadley et al.[13] from detailed records of reactor numbers, false positives and false negatives. The authors concluded that "eradication of tuberculous badgers resolves the cattle problem for at least 10 years."

7.2 However neither the researchers nor those that quote the Thornbury experience as proof of badger culpability ask the question: what was happening to the cattle after 1975? There is no record how many were culled apart from the reactors. It was presumably not thought relevant. But we know that from the mid seventies, two factors operated to increase the severity of culling. First, farmers were buying in high yielding Holsteins, and getting rid of their long lived Friesians. Second, 1975 the EU expansion programme started, with large subsidies available for bulk tanks, new cubicle houses and money for Holstein replacements. Moreover the researchers ignored the fact, pointed out in the Dunnet Report[14]that there was a similar drop in TB reactor incidence throughout the rest of England and Wales where virtually no badger gassing took place. Defra's Consultation Document gives an updated version of the Dunnet Report graph, showing a steady decline of TB reactor incidence after Foot and Mouth 1987 when Holsteins were introduced, reaching an all time low in the mid seventies and rising swiftly after 1981. The graphs for the "rest of England and Wales" and for SW England fall and rise in parallel[15] 

7.3 When TB declines, no conclusions can be drawn from the effects of badger culling, unless the effects of cattle culling are also assessed. The reason for the overall decline could, I suggest, be attributed to the removal of silent carriers. Its present resurgence is due to their return, hastened by an accelerating soil depletion of trace elements, and aggravated by cattle mobility.

7.4 MAFF/Defra failed to ask the critical question because for thirty years it was believed that cattle-to-cattle transmission was of minimal importance. This assumption was not challenged by the scientific establishment until the ISG took it up in their 2nd Report: "We consider the issue has not been adequately addressed in the past and may be of greater practical significance than has been appreciated". In 2003 the over-riding importance of cattle-to-cattle transmission was proved via spoligotesting (DNA tracing of reactor cattle to their place of origin) and the need to restrict cattle mobility was at last recognised by Defra[16] 

8. MAFF/DEFRA INTRANSIGENCE

8.1 Government expenditure on bovine TB has risen to £71m/yr (15), and there are fears for the demise of cattle farming in the hot spot areas. Hopes are pinned on a vaccine, but current funding is said to be insufficient. How much is spent on research into trace element nutrition? nothing. Defra refuse to do trials, arguing that health protection measures must be based on "sound science." Their own scientific credentials are not reassuring. They denied the importance of cattle-to-cattle transmission and allowed TB to spread via unrestricted marketing and inadequate testing. They believed cattle could not acquire immunity and thus neglected research into resistance. They were ignorant of the silent carrier's role in hot spot persistence, and fixated on exposure and the badger. This is not the time for intransigence and a clinging to beliefs. Science depends on exploration and the testing of hypotheses.

8.2 Treat the ground of say 50 herds in TB areas with trace elements, according to Goodwin-Jones' protocol. Leave the ground of 50 matched herds untreated. Monitor for 12 months, but anticipate an initial increase from unmasked silent carriers. Let policy be dictated by results.

_Dr Helen Fullerton
_Farming and Livestock Concern UK
_May 2004_

House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Written Evidence


----------



## The Wanderer

Spaceisdeep said:


> 5. FALSE POSITIVES: A CASE OF IMMUNITY?
> 
> 5.1 Studies have shown it is difficult for an infected animal to transmit to others. In one trial when groups of two reactor steers were confined with one attested steer in 10 loose houses for 12 months, only four of the challenged animals were found at slaughter to be infected[7]The other six had presumably acquired immunity. Yet Defra deny that cattle can develop TB immunity. The Independent Scientific Group (ISG) did indeed raise the question, commenting: "it is unclear whether or not cattle can resolve infection with M.bovis, and if so, whether such animals are detected by TB testing procedures"[8]The answer may lie in the high level of false positives diagnosed by the TB skin test. Some 8-12% of UK reactors are shown at post mortem not to have been infected.[9] In the Anglesey outbreak September 2003, 20 reactors were diagnosed in a herd of 160 sucklers, of which five heifers and a bullock were confirmed, and 13 sucklers and a bull were false positives, unnecessarily slaughtered. The much-touted interferon- (IFN) test is at present unacceptable because it diagnoses even more false positives than the skin test
> 
> 5.2 False positives are mainly ascribed to environmental mycobacteria. Huge numbers of these inhabit soil, water, herbage and the digestive tracts of herbivores, and occasionally a species has been found to sensitise cattle to tuberculin. But I suggest that false positives are identifying animals that have mounted a cell mediated immune response, conferring an immunity which neither the skin test nor the IFN test can distinguish from infection.
> 
> 6. FALSE NEGATIVES : THE SILENT CARRIER AND HOW TO IDENTIFY IT
> 
> 6.1 False negatives are cattle that do not respond to the skin test, but are identified by lung lesions as carriers of infections when they eventually come to be slaughtered. They are "silent carriers" who, although healthy themselves, can infect the susceptible or pass it on by maternal transmission. It is thought that about 10% of those tested are false negatives, but this is probably an underestimate. The cause of the non-responsiveness is a suppression of the circulating Th1 lymphocytes and hence of the inflammatory reaction at the injection site, a condition known as anergy. There is also a reduction in the interferon- which these cells produce, so that the IFN- test in this respect is no better than the skin test. Finally the defensive nitric oxide produced by macrophages is reduced. This means (a) that the TB bacillus persists, protected from nitric oxide's lethal free radical derivatives, and (b) since there is no immune over-reaction that destroys host tissue, the cow can live for years in good health, a long term and undetectable reservoir of infection.
> 
> 6.2 Suppressive agents giving rise to chronic—as opposed to temporary—anergy, include malnutrition, secondary infections, intestinal parasites, zinc deficiency, corticosteroids and stress[10]Recent research explains the suppressive role of zinc deficiency. Adequate levels of serum zinc activate a molecular cascade that propagates to the nucleus, stimulating DNA sequences specific for lymphocyte proliferation[11]Hence where zinc is deficient, the Th1 lymphocytes do not multiply to induce an immune reaction.
> 
> 6.3 MAFF have argued that silent carriers are a minute fraction of the cattle population as evidenced by the small number diagnosed at the abattoir. This assertion was disproved by McIlroy et al. who carefully dissected the lungs of reactors which had tested negative the year before and found that the lesions were often minute, and would have been missed in routine inspection[12]
> 
> 6.4 I propose that irrespective of any contribution by infected badgers, silent carriers are the prime cause for the persistence of the hot spots in SW England, as also in Ireland, and contribute to the spread to other areas. Since there are no badgers on Anglesey, is there a silent carrier, imported from the mainland? Although soils are nutrient deficient, the farmer's husbandry avoids stress. But note it was only the young stock, five heifers and a bullock that were confirmed positives. Was susceptibility triggered by stress eg at weaning?
> 
> 6.5 It is obviously urgent to remove the silent carriers. I suggest that if trace element deficiencies in the cattle are corrected, the suppressive effects of zinc and selenium deficiencies on lymphocyte proliferation, and of cobalt (B12) deficiency on parasite overload would be lifted and the silent carrier identified by the skin test. We should be warned that unless this is done, a reservoir of infection will persist in the old and in new hot spots, far more potent than any from the badger. Carriers eat from the same mangers, dropping saliva and mucous, breathe out aerosols in the same cubicle house air as their companions, putting at risk the susceptible. And despite the proposed mandatory pre- and post movement testing, the silent carrier will escape detection and carry the disease to other herds.
> 
> 7. THE THORNBURY BADGER CLEARANCE 1975-1981
> 7.1 Recently the Thornbury badger clearance has been quoted as irrefutable evidence for-badger to-cattle transmission. 1975-1981 badgers were totally cleared from 104 sq kilometres centred on Thornbury, Avon. Setts were gassed with hydrocyanic acid and recolonisation prevented by further gassing until 1981, after which it was allowed to proceed. The 104 herds in the area were thereafter free of TB until 1992. The decline of the disease, in step with badger clearance was studied by Clifton-Hadley et al.[13] from detailed records of reactor numbers, false positives and false negatives. The authors concluded that "eradication of tuberculous badgers resolves the cattle problem for at least 10 years."
> 
> 7.2 However neither the researchers nor those that quote the Thornbury experience as proof of badger culpability ask the question: what was happening to the cattle after 1975? There is no record how many were culled apart from the reactors. It was presumably not thought relevant. But we know that from the mid seventies, two factors operated to increase the severity of culling. First, farmers were buying in high yielding Holsteins, and getting rid of their long lived Friesians. Second, 1975 the EU expansion programme started, with large subsidies available for bulk tanks, new cubicle houses and money for Holstein replacements. Moreover the researchers ignored the fact, pointed out in the Dunnet Report[14]that there was a similar drop in TB reactor incidence throughout the rest of England and Wales where virtually no badger gassing took place. Defra's Consultation Document gives an updated version of the Dunnet Report graph, showing a steady decline of TB reactor incidence after Foot and Mouth 1987 when Holsteins were introduced, reaching an all time low in the mid seventies and rising swiftly after 1981. The graphs for the "rest of England and Wales" and for SW England fall and rise in parallel[15]
> 
> 7.3 When TB declines, no conclusions can be drawn from the effects of badger culling, unless the effects of cattle culling are also assessed. The reason for the overall decline could, I suggest, be attributed to the removal of silent carriers. Its present resurgence is due to their return, hastened by an accelerating soil depletion of trace elements, and aggravated by cattle mobility.
> 
> 7.4 MAFF/Defra failed to ask the critical question because for thirty years it was believed that cattle-to-cattle transmission was of minimal importance. This assumption was not challenged by the scientific establishment until the ISG took it up in their 2nd Report: "We consider the issue has not been adequately addressed in the past and may be of greater practical significance than has been appreciated". In 2003 the over-riding importance of cattle-to-cattle transmission was proved via spoligotesting (DNA tracing of reactor cattle to their place of origin) and the need to restrict cattle mobility was at last recognised by Defra[16]
> 
> 8. MAFF/DEFRA INTRANSIGENCE
> 
> 8.1 Government expenditure on bovine TB has risen to £71m/yr (15), and there are fears for the demise of cattle farming in the hot spot areas. Hopes are pinned on a vaccine, but current funding is said to be insufficient. How much is spent on research into trace element nutrition? nothing. Defra refuse to do trials, arguing that health protection measures must be based on "sound science." Their own scientific credentials are not reassuring. They denied the importance of cattle-to-cattle transmission and allowed TB to spread via unrestricted marketing and inadequate testing. They believed cattle could not acquire immunity and thus neglected research into resistance. They were ignorant of the silent carrier's role in hot spot persistence, and fixated on exposure and the badger. This is not the time for intransigence and a clinging to beliefs. Science depends on exploration and the testing of hypotheses.
> 
> 8.2 Treat the ground of say 50 herds in TB areas with trace elements, according to Goodwin-Jones' protocol. Leave the ground of 50 matched herds untreated. Monitor for 12 months, but anticipate an initial increase from unmasked silent carriers. Let policy be dictated by results.
> 
> _Dr Helen Fullerton
> _Farming and Livestock Concern UK
> _May 2004_
> 
> House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Written Evidence


Thanks for posting this, very interesting and informative. I was unaware of the part played by selenium and other minerals in the role of bovine immunity to respiratory disease . I knew that bread in this country was deficient in selenium because it has been leeched from the soil the wheat is grown in and because of this I've taken a selenium supplement for years.

On the poor husbandry aspect I saw a video a while back recorded by a group opposed to the cull. It was done at a cattle market and it was quite shocking to see only one farmer actually immersing his boots in the disinfectant provided.


----------



## The Wanderer

Now it appears that moronic Owen Patterson and his pro-cull friends may have actually mad matters worse with the cull the experts warned against.

Failed Gloucestershire badger cull may have increased TB risk for cattle | Environment | theguardian.com


----------



## kettykev

Surely the reason they did not kill enough badgers is down to the actions of protesters, meaning that all those badgers died for nothing and could now lead to more outbreaks due to perturbation.


----------



## Mynki

kettykev said:


> Surely the reason they did not kill enough badgers is down to the actions of protesters,


No, all the protesters did was run up a huge bill for the tax payer to pay for the additional policing. Bunches of argumentative, loony lefties protesting for the sake of protesting rarely if ever, achieve anything these days? 

The pilot was only ever to see if the logistics of culling the badgers were feasible. In the sense that the riflemen could shoot and trap the animals effectively. As far as I'm aware the culled animals were not even tested for tb. 

But wild animals are exactly that, wild. Anyone who's ever been out trying to watch wildlife knows there is never any guarantees of seeing anything, let alone getting into a position to shoot it. So them not meeting their target is not a massive surprise really. It's possible that the original numbers estimated were very wrong too, afterall it's not as if Brock and his mates are all wearing radio collars is it?

Be very wary of the stuff you read in the Guardian, the spin is amusing but sadly a lot of their stories lead the less intelligent readers to believe what they're reading is gospel and not anti government spin and propaganda.


----------



## The Wanderer

The opinion of those materialistic idiots who get their kicks slaughtering animals is of course far superior :whistling2:


----------



## Mynki

Sure is. Meat eaters and veggies / vegans should be thankful there are those out there man enough to slaughter animals, domesticated and wild for food. What would those unable to man up to the task do without them?

Don't confuse them with working class, staffie fan types who enjoy a bit of badger baiting though. :whistling2:


----------



## kettykev

I hope the Guardian reading reference wasn't aimed at me, I get my ideas and info from the fact that I actually catch Badgers as part of my job as a badger vaccinator so I like to think I know what I am talking about. Smashing up cage traps with sledgehammers, removing cage traps and walking in areas where shooters are about to shoot will all affect the total of badgers caught/killed.


----------



## Mynki

I think when it comes to the culling of any species, people should always be very wary of the views of extremists on both sides. The Guardian are a bunch of loony lefties who have an agenda and so my reference was to all.

One of the arguments that the antis have been using is that the cull is a waste of tax payers money. One reality of the pilot cull is that the policing costs amount to around £2000 per animal killed in Gloucestershire because of the actions of the antis.

On another forum I frequent we have a member that was licensed to shoot them, he's not given a whole lot of info away for obvious reasons, but hints that the antis in his area did sod all. 

What vaccine are you using? Who are you working for, and are vaccinations currently being carried out right now? PM me if you prefer.


----------



## Spaceisdeep

Mynki said:


> No, all the protesters did was run up a huge bill for the tax payer to pay for the additional policing. Bunches of argumentative, loony lefties protesting for the sake of protesting rarely if ever, achieve anything these days?



I'll take a bunch of Guardian reading loony lefties protesting about any injustice over a bunch of right wing narrow minded sheeple sucking up everything the Daily Fail drip feeds it's mindless readership any day

The only reason protests achieve little these days is because too many apathetic people sit at home repeating the mantra "but what good will it do, what difference can I make" instead of getting out there and doing it

I'm glad the protestors ran up huge bills for the tax payer, I'm sure the bills are dwarfed by what it actualy cost for the pilot trials anyway and if the tax payer is so upset by the costs, maybe they should confront their mps and ask them to stop wasting money by papering over the cracks of a problem in order to be seen to be doing something


----------



## Mynki

Spaceisdeep said:


> I'll take a bunch of Guardian reading loony lefties protesting about any injustice over a bunch of right wing narrow minded sheeple sucking up everything the Daily Fail drip feeds it's mindless readership any day
> 
> The only reason protests achieve little these days is because too many apathetic people sit at home repeating the mantra "but what good will it do, what difference can I make" instead of getting out there and doing it
> 
> I'm glad the protestors ran up huge bills for the tax payer, I'm sure the bills are dwarfed by what it actualy cost for the pilot trials anyway and if the tax payer is so upset by the costs, maybe they should confront their mps and ask them to stop wasting money by papering over the cracks of a problem in order to be seen to be doing something


 
I agree on the Daily Fail comments it's every bit as bad as the **** written in the Guardian.

How will the bills compare with the projected costs of bovine tb in the future and how would you reduce them? I look forward to reading your figures to see if you've found a credible solution.


----------



## kettykev

It's no secret Mynki, I am working for the welsh government and am involved in the Badger vaccination programme and we have just finished our second season. We use the BCG vaccine but work is not being carried out now as our license does not permit us to trap into the winter. We will start again in April.


----------



## Spaceisdeep

Mynki said:


> I agree on the Daily Fail comments it's every bit as bad as the **** written in the Guardian.



:2thumb:




> How will the bills compare with the projected costs of bovine tb in the future and how would you reduce them? I look forward to reading your figures to see if you've found a credible solution.


I could be miles off with any credible solution but I do know that currently the gov uses tax payers money to prop up a broken industry

Farmers routinely bleat about not making any money from dairy farming, they have been claiming for years that every liter of milk costs significantly more to produce than they are paid for it so that's clearly not sustainable in the long term and allows no investment for improving husbandry.

I know for a fact that the dairy farm I live on made more money in the last few years from governbent compensation than it did from milk sales, the moment a cow gets a reactor it goes from being a loss making burden to a 1500 quid profit on the balance sheet

The governbent were advised by all sides that a cull wouldn't work, they went against that advise and wasted millions on a trial and once thay have finished manipulating the results they will waste even more on the full scale cull

Not wanting to go down the conspiraloon path but it would seem to me the gov is hellbent on this cull so that they can tell dairy farmers in a few years time that they culled all of the badgers and if their cows are still getting bovine tb, which they will be, that there is no longer any compensation scheme

One thing is for sure, even after the very last badger is culled from existence, bovines will still contract bovine tb


----------



## Mynki

Spaceisdeep said:


> :2thumb:
> 
> 
> I could be miles off with any credible solution but I do know that currently the gov uses tax payers money to prop up a broken industry
> 
> Farmers routinely bleat about not making any money from dairy farming, they have been claiming for years that every liter of milk costs significantly more to produce than they are paid for it so that's clearly not sustainable in the long term and allows no investment for improving husbandry.
> 
> I know for a fact that the dairy farm I live on made more money in the last few years from governbent compensation than it did from milk sales, the moment a cow gets a reactor it goes from being a loss making burden to a 1500 quid profit on the balance sheet
> 
> The governbent were advised by all sides that a cull wouldn't work, they went against that advise and wasted millions on a trial and once thay have finished manipulating the results they will waste even more on the full scale cull
> 
> Not wanting to go down the conspiraloon path but it would seem to me the gov is hellbent on this cull so that they can tell dairy farmers in a few years time that they culled all of the badgers and if their cows are still getting bovine tb, which they will be, that there is no longer any compensation scheme
> 
> One thing is for sure, even after the very last badger is culled from existence, bovines will still contract bovine tb


 As I've said previously in this thread, it's society who are mostly to blame for many farming issues. Supermarkets offer milk from local farmers who are paid a fair price for it. But many of the public choose to buy what's cheapest despite it only being a few pennies more. So I'm not so sure the farmers are wholly to blame here. 

I still don't believe anyone can post any authoritative answers until years after a cull has been concluded, and the badger shooting which has just taken place was only a pilot to see if traps and rifles were effective anyway. But everyone knows badgers transmit bovine tb (along with other methods). Reduce the number of badgers and it stands to reason that the amount of infections will reduce, I don't think you need to be a scientist to understand that!

Whether or not it's economically viable is another question.

Incidentally you're posting on a reptile keeping forum. There are many groups opposed to our hobby and plenty of 'scientific evidence' has been provided by the likes of Clifford Warwick on behalf the Animal Protection Agency. He's a self styled world expert on zoonotic diseases and could quite easily convince an unsuspecting public that reptile keeping should be banned and is dangerous for human health because he's a scientist.

Most of the RSPCA's ruling council are members of Animal Aid, an organisation ultimately opposed to keeping animals in captivity, so how do you now that the evidence people point to against the cull hasn't been produced because of some hidden agenda?


----------



## Mynki

kettykev said:


> It's no secret Mynki, I am working for the welsh government and am involved in the Badger vaccination programme and we have just finished our second season. We use the BCG vaccine but work is not being carried out now as our license does not permit us to trap into the winter. We will start again in April.


 Just out of interest how are vaccinators selected? 

When will the results of your work be made public? 

And can an infected badger be treated? 

I have no idea, hence the questions.


----------



## kettykev

Vaccinators are chosen by the usual method of applying for the job and passing an interview which had nothing to do with the job, we were then placed on a training session to become vaccinators.
I have no idea when the results will be published, there will obviously be some time delay between our actions and any change in infection rates. Badgers that are already infected will not be cured by being vaccinated but all badgers caught are vaccinated and so as the adults die off there are less and less infected ones because each year a new generation of cubs is caught and vaccinated.


----------



## Khonsu

Spaceisdeep said:


> I'm glad the protestors ran up huge bills for the tax payer


Just so we know where you're firing from can you advise if you are indeed a tax payer ?


----------



## Mynki

kettykev said:


> Vaccinators are chosen by the usual method of applying for the job and passing an interview which had nothing to do with the job,


 Interesting, every time I've been interviewed it's always been completely relevant to the job.

Did you need any formal qualifications to work as a vaccinator? And once caught in a trap, how do you deal with an obviously agitated animal?


----------



## kettykev

No experience was needed although obviously it helps, the interview was a competence based one and no questions were asked regarding previous experience. All staff were put on a training course. Badgers in a cage are actually usually asleep or just sitting quietly, the vaccine is prepared, one leans forward and injects them in the thigh muscle, easy as that.


----------



## The Wanderer

kettykev said:


> No experience was needed although obviously it helps, the interview was a competence based one and no questions were asked regarding previous experience. All staff were put on a training course. Badgers in a cage are actually usually asleep or just sitting quietly, the vaccine is prepared, one leans forward and injects them in the thigh muscle, easy as that.


 It all sounds very civilised and humane as it should be. Thanks for posting this. I was curious as to how the procedure was carried out.


----------



## Mynki

kettykev said:


> No experience was needed although obviously it helps, the interview was a competence based one and no questions were asked regarding previous experience. All staff were put on a training course. Badgers in a cage are actually usually asleep or just sitting quietly, the vaccine is prepared, one leans forward and injects them in the thigh muscle, easy as that.


 Do you have any pictures? What would happen if you found one with external signs of tb? And do you tag them so that they can be identified as vaccinated to avoid duplication of effort etc? In the same way some wild deer have 'no eat' tags attached if they've been treated with meds unapproved for human consumption. Not that anyone consumes badgers, but you know what I mean. 

All interesting stuff, funnily enough I know three real world cattle farmers based near Derby, Carlisle and in South Ayrshire.

The first two are opposed to a cull because the badgers on and around their property appear to be tb and if culled they'd then face the risk of infected animals moving in and posing a threat to their herds.

The chap in South Ayrshire has asked my friends and I to illegally shoot them if we come across them. Not that we ever would, but I'm sure you can see the massive irony when you consider the three areas and attitudes....



The Wanderer said:


> It all sounds very civilised and humane as it should be. Thanks for posting this. I was curious as to how the procedure was carried out.


 Glad to see you learning about real world animal management George. The realities are very different from the politically spun, class based garbage you read in the papers.


----------



## kettykev

The information is in the public domain so I am not revealing any secrets here, we trap an area for 2 nights and vaccinate the badgers, once vaccinated they have a chunk of fur cut out with scissors and this patch is then sprayed with stock marker to avoid revaccinating any recaptures. We then move onto the next area and begin a few weeks surveying and prebaiting of traps. We often catch badgers that have been previously caught and these are easily identified by the patch of fur missing, any doubtful ones are vaccinated again, this does no harm.
Much is made of the fact the Wales is leading the way by vaccinating it's badgers but in reality we are only doing a small area compared to the country as a whole.


----------

