Think of how many rats, rabbits and mice those badgers eat and their economic value is suddenly higher than what would be saved by the paltry 17% TB reduction I've heard about.
To Cull or not to cull.
- Thread starter hog
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
I've tried to look at this logically.
1.From what I've read, a cull of badgers would need to be greater than 75% of the population to be effective, and even then badgers would soon move in from non-culled areas.
2. Badger vaccination is not practical at the moment.
3. It would be practical logistically to vaccinate all cows (as they're not wild animals), although the current vaccines aren't 100% effective.
4. the current skin test for bovine TB is only 70% accurate, with up to 30% false positives. It doesn't appear that too much effort has been ploughed into finding a more effective one, although it may be available soon.
5. Any vaccination of cows will lead to a positive reaction to the TB skin test, meaning that per EU rules the cow must be destroyed.
6. Effective pasteurisation renders milk from a TB cow fit for human consumption.
If my understanding as above is correct, it would appear that culling badgers - unless you go for 100% country-wide - will be ineffective over the longer term. THe logical route would be to vaccinate the bovine population, which means a more effective vaccine is needed, and the EU rules re destroying positive skin-test animals needs revision (or a more effective means of testing cows needs to be introduced). The latter route would appear to be the only sensible way to address the problem on an ongoing basis.
Thoughts?
1.From what I've read, a cull of badgers would need to be greater than 75% of the population to be effective, and even then badgers would soon move in from non-culled areas.
2. Badger vaccination is not practical at the moment.
3. It would be practical logistically to vaccinate all cows (as they're not wild animals), although the current vaccines aren't 100% effective.
4. the current skin test for bovine TB is only 70% accurate, with up to 30% false positives. It doesn't appear that too much effort has been ploughed into finding a more effective one, although it may be available soon.
5. Any vaccination of cows will lead to a positive reaction to the TB skin test, meaning that per EU rules the cow must be destroyed.
6. Effective pasteurisation renders milk from a TB cow fit for human consumption.
If my understanding as above is correct, it would appear that culling badgers - unless you go for 100% country-wide - will be ineffective over the longer term. THe logical route would be to vaccinate the bovine population, which means a more effective vaccine is needed, and the EU rules re destroying positive skin-test animals needs revision (or a more effective means of testing cows needs to be introduced). The latter route would appear to be the only sensible way to address the problem on an ongoing basis.
Thoughts?
The idea that culling is ineffective is disproved by the Ireland figures - they continued to cull and the incidence of bovine TB has fallen - UK stopped culling and bovine TB has risen several fold. All other TB in my activities are the same. These facts are cited with supporting evidence in my earlier posts.
Here is a question - if bovine TB is not transmitted to humans, why test and destroy infected animals at all?
Here is a question - if bovine TB is not transmitted to humans, why test and destroy infected animals at all?
An interesting question! However, just to point out that I'm not anti-farmers or cattle, I'm an avowed meat-eater, think the anthropormophisation of animals is plain daft (and that Nature - viewed anthropormorphically, is evi)l, and seeing as my wife comes from many generations of farmers I get to see their side as well.
Re transmission of BTB to humans, as I understand it, it is very rare, other than those closely handling cows. And even then I'd lay any odds you care to mention that more people have been killed or injured handling cows during the TB skin testing than have died from BTB transmission? Pasteurised milk from TB cows is safe to drink, I gather, as is meat that has been cooked. And again, as I understand it, BTB is present in many other animals as well - wild deer for example. The Ireland comparison may or may not be fair (how many wild deer do they have to cope with, just as one "for example"( ie are we looking at a level playing field as there are a huge number of variables to consider)), and how long has the study been (ie is this just a short-term result from culling, before more badgers move into the area, or has it been decades of consistent culling that effectively removes badgers from the countryside? ) And unless you completely eradicate it by killing all animals in the wild with the disease and ensure that no dairy products or animals are ever allowed into the UK again (and look how well we guard our borders against illegal immigrants..), it WILL return.
I don't know the answer, all I can do is speculate as a pure layman. But on the face of it, it does seem that an effective vaccine, given to bovine herds, is the only realistic way you will eradicate the problem in the long term. And, going hand in glove with that will have to be a more effective TB test and a change in the current EU law that requires the flawed skin test and requirement to slaughter all animals that fails that test. Badger culling may reduce the infection rate for a while, but can never be the complete solution.
One thing I do know, however, is that the skin test identifies doesn't identify TB, but those who have antibodies to the disease in their systems. These may well be TB-free. Slaughtering them effectively reverses the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" process, removing those disease-resistant genes from the gene pool.
ps - when I was working in St Petersburg - I was told that, if I wanted to catch a highly antibiotic-resistant TB strain, all I had to do was to get arrested and thrown in the St Petersburg jail. Apparently well over 50% of the prison population were infected, and that figure was rising rapidly...
The "Irish" levels aren't a survey - they are the result of 25 years of government testing - the same as the UKs. Not a survey, entire, exhaustive national figures. The only variable is the UK halting culling and the Irish continuing. Everything else is both static and comparable. Testing regimens, reporting requirements, actions carried out following positive results. Even thing like deer can be discounted by using Northern Ireland as the "control"
In 1998, The Irish Republic had 0.55% of cattle with TB reactors. By 2011, this had fallen to 0.32%
In 1998 Northern Ireland had 0.4% of cattle with TB reactors. By 2011 this had risen to 0.5%.
Same island, same cattle controls, only difference being badger controls. In the same time period, in Great Britain, the proportion of cattle showing TB indicators rose by 700%.
The thing that changed was culling in the UK. Again, this isn't a survey, its the results of comprehensive, exhaustive, entire herd national testing.
I am not pro cull - I'm anti stupid arbitary rules about slaughtering cattle that can recover and pose no risk to human health. However culling does work - our figures individually and compared to other countries proves that beyond doubt. Whether we should do it is another matter - but if we want local food and food independence then we cannot simply say "stop the cull and hang the consequences". Bovine TB is rising exponentially. It costs us all more every year and more farmers give up each year. Its absurdly narrow minded to ignore it - we need a complete solution - not an emotional reaction (not pointing that at any individual here - but going "don't kill badgers" without adressing the broader issue is naive).
Red
In 1998, The Irish Republic had 0.55% of cattle with TB reactors. By 2011, this had fallen to 0.32%
In 1998 Northern Ireland had 0.4% of cattle with TB reactors. By 2011 this had risen to 0.5%.
Same island, same cattle controls, only difference being badger controls. In the same time period, in Great Britain, the proportion of cattle showing TB indicators rose by 700%.
The thing that changed was culling in the UK. Again, this isn't a survey, its the results of comprehensive, exhaustive, entire herd national testing.
I am not pro cull - I'm anti stupid arbitary rules about slaughtering cattle that can recover and pose no risk to human health. However culling does work - our figures individually and compared to other countries proves that beyond doubt. Whether we should do it is another matter - but if we want local food and food independence then we cannot simply say "stop the cull and hang the consequences". Bovine TB is rising exponentially. It costs us all more every year and more farmers give up each year. Its absurdly narrow minded to ignore it - we need a complete solution - not an emotional reaction (not pointing that at any individual here - but going "don't kill badgers" without adressing the broader issue is naive).
Red
With respect Red, I agree overall the trend in countries allowing open control of badger numbers do on average seem to have a decrease in TB cases, but that doesn't mean without doubt a badger cull is the answer. For example the numbers for NI and RoI are an ideal example, why have the cases of TB not increases by the same extent as in the SW of England? I would argue these numbers are not at all significant because the change is so small, cases may have risen from 0.4 - 0.5% (which are small numbers compared with the SW) but that is still below the 1998 0.55% value in RoI when control had been happening for many years.
Another visual area of concern as a scientist is the UK graphic of TB cases on the BBC website:
Clearly the cases of TB do not map effectively onto badger populations? If badgers are the primary infection pathway then I would expect much better correlation between cases of TB and badger populations?
I am not for, or against a cull, and I agree there is evidence for both cases which suggests to me the only course of action is the government to fund more research, something that should have been done years ago, to find the right solution with out guessing. What I do think is badger numbers prove they do not require the high level of protection they currently receive, just like dear they are fantastic to watch but their numbers must be managed to limit the damage that can be caused.
Another visual area of concern as a scientist is the UK graphic of TB cases on the BBC website:
Clearly the cases of TB do not map effectively onto badger populations? If badgers are the primary infection pathway then I would expect much better correlation between cases of TB and badger populations?
I am not for, or against a cull, and I agree there is evidence for both cases which suggests to me the only course of action is the government to fund more research, something that should have been done years ago, to find the right solution with out guessing. What I do think is badger numbers prove they do not require the high level of protection they currently receive, just like dear they are fantastic to watch but their numbers must be managed to limit the damage that can be caused.
With respect Red, I agree overall the trend in countries allowing open control of badger numbers do on average seem to have a decrease in TB cases, but that doesn't mean without doubt a badger cull is the answer. For example the numbers for NI and RoI are an ideal example, why have the cases of TB not increases by the same extent as in the SW of England? I would argue these numbers are not at all significant because the change is so small, cases may have risen from 0.4 - 0.5% (which are small numbers compared with the SW) but that is still below the 1998 0.55% value in RoI when control had been happening for many years.
Another visual area of concern as a scientist is the UK graphic of TB cases on the BBC website:
Clearly the cases of TB do not map effectively onto badger populations? If badgers are the primary infection pathway then I would expect much better correlation between cases of TB and badger populations?
I am not for, or against a cull, and I agree there is evidence for both cases which suggests to me the only course of action is the government to fund more research, something that should have been done years ago, to find the right solution with out guessing. What I do think is badger numbers prove they do not require the high level of protection they currently receive, just like dear they are fantastic to watch but their numbers must be managed to limit the damage that can be caused.
That is interesting but i suppose to back it up you would need to look at the level of arable v livestock farming in the areas affected. I dont know the answer too that but im sure it would have an impact one way or t'other
The comments regarding milk and meat beinig rendered safe for consumption by cooking or pasteurization brings up a question. As I remember some European cuisine still contains cheeses from unpasteurized raw milk and dishes such as Steak Tar Tar? Doesn't that explain the concern?
I agree with that last para completely. However, the issue you raise is "a complete solution", and clearly culling is not - and never will be - that. It may reduce the incidents slightly, as you've evidenced by your ROI comparisn, although if I were a scientist I'd want to see the direct comparability of other factors/vectors (a few that come to mind would be herd densities and feeding routines, slaughterhouse procedures and comparisons, other infected wild animal population comparisons etc etc etc). I'd also want to see the queries raised by bigroomboy above explained away as well!
Which is why an effective vaccine for bovine herds HAS to be the way forward in the long run, imho.
Current Vaccines not fully effective, but also that any cow vaccinated will show a positive reaction to the skin-test, and under EU guidlines MUST be destroyed....
Fair enough, can accept that.
Thought that was the case - stupid, stupid, stupid!!
As a layman, it certainly seems that way! THe skin test apparently tests for TB antibodies, not the existence of active TB. So you have to destroy any animal vaccinated, and also kill off healthy animals with natural immunity..................................
As far as I know that's the same test given humans; the one I recieved every year at work for over 34 years. I don't believe there is any other test.
I think there would be other tests but they would be lab based, taking too long and costing too much. You could take swabs and grow cultures then identify the colonies but that would take days of work and not be possible on large numbers.
Another reason for us to get out?
I'm not as aware of this as many and have no feet in either camp - but I don't think Brain May is all that clued up either, but because he once played a guitar behind a man who could sing everyone is listening to him.
I'm not pro or anti either - I am pro food though
I agree that NI has lower levels than SW England - but rising - the important point for me is that in a decade NI where culling is banned has risen. ROI where culling continues has fallen. Indeed the 1998 figures show ROI as far higher than NI, a decade later, ROI is much lower.
The important point though is these figures are not some speculation, or a survey or a count. They are absolute numbers based on the entire country, found as a result of a rigoorous testing regime of all cattle. One rising, while the other falls by nearly half is a statistically massive difference.
Similar threads
