News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Vet speaks out in favour of Pembrokeshire badger cull trial to eradicate bovine TB


Paul Rodgers, a practising vet with more than 30 years’ experience, tells the Western Telegraph about his experiences tackling bovine TB on the ground. “When I started in practice in 1978 TB had nearly been eradicated. Since the 1990s, when control of badgers was stopped, there has been a steady increase in TB. The intensive action pilot area has given me hope that we can see the end to this terrible disease in west Wales.

With some trepidation I agreed, last Monday, to speak to a meeting of Pembrokeshire Against the Cull to explain my views on TB control and the work that farmers and their vets in the area are already doing to stop TB from getting into herds. Measures that most of the audience, who I suspect were not farmers, are not aware of.

Successful TB control can be compared with a three legged stool: testing and removal of infected cattle; control of movement from infected herds; control of wildlife. Like a stool all three legs need to be in place.

These days too much of my time as a vet is spent testing for TB. There is a lot of debate and misunderstanding about how good or accurate the current TB test is.

Some say that the tests do not pick up all infected cattle, and at the other end of the spectrum, that too many cattle that are not infected are taken for slaughter unnecessarily.

The accuracy of any test is judged by how sensitive it is (how good it is at finding disease) and how specific it is (how good it is at correctly identifying non-diseased animals as uninfected). Unfortunately, if a test is made more sensitive it becomes less specific.

In areas where there is no external source of TB such as Scotland or Cumbria, the tests used in the UK are sufficiently accurate and work well. If bovine TB was only present in cattle, we could eradicate it by testing alone. But because it is also present in badgers in areas such as west Wales, testing is not enough.

Herds in the pilot area are to be subject to stringent cattle movement controls and more frequent testing.

From May 1st, most herds will require two annual TB tests. Farmers have also had the first of a series of biosecurity visits by their own vets to help them reduce the risk of their herd getting TB by changing farming practice. Areas looked at include: contact with neighbouring herds; cattle introduction; slurry management; access of badgers into buildings and feed stores.

Unfortunately, the main site of TB infection in badgers is the kidney, so contamination of pasture with highly infectious urine is common and it is very difficult to eliminate this risk when cattle are grazing.

Since 1975, a series of trials have provided compelling evidence that removing badgers will reduce TB in cattle. In 1998, the Randomised Badger Culling Trial looked at the effect of culling badgers with proper experimental control areas (areas which had no culling). There was a significant reduction in new herd breakdowns within the cull areas, partially offset by an increase in surrounding areas due to the much vaunted social perturbation effect.

However, soon after the end of the trial the perturbation effect disappeared, whereas the benefits persisted for more than two years.

There is a misconception about what a vaccine can do. Generally, vaccines prevent disease, not cure it, so a badger infected with TB will remain infected, even if it is vaccinated.

A badger vaccine has only just received a licence which will allow Defra to trial whether it is actually practical to trap and inject thousands of badgers. If the vaccine works, it will be many years before there will be a decrease in cattle breakdowns.

The present crisis is such that we do not have time for a vaccination policy in infected areas to work. When a practical oral vaccine is developed, it may be possible to keep uninfected badgers healthy, but that is still years away.

I look forward to a time when I will not have to tell another farmer that his best cow has to be killed and when many thousands of badgers no longer die a slow, unpleasant death due to TB.”


Comments(3)

Walrus says...
10:52am Sun 11 Apr 10

I think the saddest thing is that the Pembrokeshire Badger extermination is being used as a smokescreen to hide the fact that Government, Vets and Farmers Unions have totally let down dairy farmers to the point that they are becoming an endangered species.

Cheap foriegn imports are flooding the supermarket shelves forcing hundreds of our farmers out of production every year. Those that survive are breaking their backs trying to farm in ways their fathers would never have encompassed. The bigger the herd the more work, but profits continue to fall, how do you pay the vets bills and all the other costs of intensive farming. Where do farmers find the time to improve biosecurity?

Cows are animals not machines. The average dairy cow lives no longer than 6 years or less, half of what it could be. Lameness, Mastitis and a whole plethora of disease and injury can are aggravated by intensive farming.
90% of Bovine TB infection is Cow to Cow. If vets and Government and farmers leaders were serious about preventing bTB from spreading they would stop movements of cattle from hotspots to relatively clean areas. Killing badgers is only going to have a minimal local effect on the problem, Its like treating a severed artery with a small sticking plaster.
It would not make a jot of difference if Mr Rodgers had every Badger in the UK killed, until the main reasons for TB are adressed, he will still be telling the few remaining dairy farmers their best cow has bTB as long as he is in practice and still has any customers.

I care about farmers, they are my friends and neighbours. I am also their customer. I would and happily do pay more for their products in the knowledge their cattle were well looked after.

Spectrum says...
4:37pm Mon 12 Apr 10

Paul Rodgers draws a relationship between the spread of bTB and the ending of the control of badgers in the 1990s. Is he saying that farmers routinely killed badgers (the 1992 Act merely extended existing badger protection to setts, incidentally) and does he have any evidence that the two were connected? No, because there isn't any. The low level of bTB in the 1970s was directly due to the long-term area by area bTB eradication scheme which focussed entirely on cattle-to-cattle transmission. No badgers were killed or implicated in the 1950s/1960s bTB epidemic . Then as now the failure of the farming industry to rigorously tackle a highly infectious respiratory disease was the problem. He details the far-reaching measures now being put in place in Wales. Had the same measures to control the movement of diseased cattle and to test all herds been in place since the 1970s, this epidemic would have been stopped in its tracks. He refers to cattle-based measures that his audience might not have been aware of. How aware, I would ask, are farmers of the failure of the live test and the fact that TB often lies undetected for months, even years, in cattle before it breaks out? Farmers inevitably blame badgers when their herds again test positive after earlier getting the green light. They have no proof, they don't even know whether they have diseased badgers on their farm, but they always blame "wildlife". How many of these farmers actively practise the biosecurity (disease prevention) measures recommended by Defra? The feedback from Defra is not many. Before farmers and vets start slaughtering ALL badgers (there's no method for picking out only diseased ones) let them show the public, who are paying these huge compensation bills, that they are doing everything they can to control this infectious disease.

ZeusH says...
7:45pm Mon 12 Apr 10

We need to be able to vaccinate our cattle against bTB and the 'crisis' will be over but when will we be able to do this? What I find of greatest concern about this whole issue is that so many people fail to question the basics of the whole bTB programme. There are far more questions than answers (see www.bovinetb.co.uk) - many of these are fundamentals and if they cannot be answered then the existing policy is suspect. Have we now got to the stage where the detrimental affects on both humans and animals as a result of existing policy are far worse than the risk of the disease itself? It has been refreshing to see that scientists are beginning to question the current policy. ‘Public Health and bovine tuberculosis – what’s all the fuss about’ is a recently published report by Dr Paul R Torgerson and Professor David J Torgenson. It is a very well researched and referenced, concluding that bTB control in cattle is irrelevant as a public health policy and there is little evidence either for a positive cost benefit in terms of animal health of bTB control. It suggests that such evidence is required; otherwise there is little justification for the large sums of money spent on bTB control in the UK. We already have reports that conclude culling of badgers is not good value for money and yet no financial analysis of the existing programme has been undertaken - despite the huge costs to the taxpayer. A radical re-think is needed.


Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses