On the 19th July 2011, Caroline Spelman announced that the government would carry out two pilot badger culls in the areas shown below. This was part of the governments bovine TB eradication program.

Caroline Spelman’s announcement of the proposed pilot badger cull. She says it will be part of a ‘science led and carefully managed policy’ Neither were or are true 

The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) was the first large scale  scientific evaluation of the effect of badger culling on cattle TB. It lasted 10 years, cost in excess of £50 million, and was overseen by an Independent Scientific Group (ISG). 

Two culling treatments were undertaken: reactive culling, where localised culls were carried out on farms that had recently experienced a TB outbreak in cattle, and proactive culling where larger scale areas were culled. Both these treatments were restricted to regions where the historical incidence of TB in cattle was high. In addition to culling, there were matched “control” areas where no culling was carried out. The principle is the same as we see in medical trials, where one segment of the population receives a treatment drug and another receives a placebo, the idea being that, at the end of the trial, any significant effects can be reliably ascribed to the treatment.

There were ten treatment areas for both the reactive and proactive culls, and ten matched controls. Each of the 30 experimental areas was about 100 square kilometres in area.

Reactive culling was stopped by government ministers when it was found that TB in cattle was getting significantly worse compared to the control sites. At the end of the proactive culls, it was found that there were both positive and negative effects, whereby farms in the core of the culling area experienced a relative decrease of around 25% and farms on the edge of the culling area experienced a relative increase of around 25%, compared to the control areas. 

The negative effects of both reactive and proactive culling were thought to be due to the disruptive effects of culling on the badger population, causing increased dispersal and movement by the remaining badgers and thereby exacerbating the spread of TB. Alternate data unproven suggested that the Foot and Mouth outbreak and restocking may have had factor in these unusual figures.

Taking into account the cost of culling, as well as the compelling results of the trial, the ISG concluded “that badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to the control of TB in cattle in Britain.”

They recommended that the best way to combat the disease was to improve the detection and removal of TB in cattle themselves, mentioning that this would also improve the TB situation in badgers, as the diseased spills over into them from the cattle. They also recommended improvements in farm biosecurity to reduce the risk of transmission, and continuing work to develop vaccines for both badgers and cattle.

Tightened cattle movements in New Zealand decreased incidents of Bovine TB by 53% when implemented. 

Lord Krebs,  dismissed the government’s plan as “not a very effective way of controlling the disease”.

The vast majority of scientists with knowledge of the TB issue agree that culling badgers is not the solution to controlling TB in cattle.

Save Me is totally opposed to the pilot badger culls based on science. We agree with the ISG and the RBCT “that culling badgers can have no meaningful effect on bovine TB.” Culling badgers can actually increase the incidents of bovine TB in areas surrounding the cull. We believe that bTB in cattle needs to be controlled there and that killing badgers will have no effect on the spread. 

The current BTB skin test is poor and doesn’t identify latent bTB in the herd. By using enhanced testing that can detect bTB earlier is the key to the solution. Weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain this is the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone. 

Bovine TB or Mycobacterium bovis is a slow-growing (16 to 20 hour generation time), aerobic bacterium and the causative agent of tuberculosis in cattle (known as bovine TB). Related to M. tuberculosis—the bacteria which causes tuberculosis in humans—M. bovis can also jump the species barrier and cause tuberculosis in humans. 

Professor John Bourne, Chair of the Independent Scientific Group has warned that the government has ignored the scientific advice provided by the trial and misinterpreted his committee’s unequivocal conclusions. He states we need to concentrate on cattle controls. 

The government’s own advisory committee has stated that cattle-to-cattle transmission is responsible for at least 80% of the disease, and that until the government gets to grips with that, there is no reason for badger culling. 

While Defra refuses to comment on the issue until the consultation period is finished, the fact is that the government is facing an annual increase of 18% in the overall cost of dealing with BTB. 

Defra argues that the evidence indicates that badgers are partly to blame, and many vets within the department argue that they are a major part of the problem. Jim Paice has stated several times, “But the reality is there’s not a country in the world that’s got rid of TB without addressing the problem in wildlife.”  What he should say is that there isn’t a country in the world that has got rid of bTB  by killing wildlife. 

1. In Africa, in areas of high TB, they choose  not to graze cattle or they use cattle strains that are TB resistant. 
2. In New Zealand, where over 100,000 possums were killed in the same battle, they found that husbandry and understanding was the major factor in controlling the disease and, when implemented, this reduced the cases of bTB by over 50%. They later concluded ‘it was in thire herd , it was always in the herd. 

The farming unions are saying that they will not cooperate with measures such as the pre-movement testing of cattle, which everyone recognises is necessary to control bTB, unless the government gives them badger culling. They see it as a trade-off.

But, alternatives to badger culling are not popular with farmers because of the cost. Limiting movement, testing cattle more intensively and quarantining new stock are expensive and inconvenient options. 

Careful evaluation of all the scientific data indicates that badger culling can’t control or impact on cattle TB.