Latest News 16 June 2008
"I have NOT decided to cull badgers," Elin Jones admits in Wales 

Lawyers acting for Elin Jones, Minister for Rural Affairs in the
Welsh Assembly Government, have confirmed that she has NOT made a
decision to cull badgers in Wales.

The admission comes in response to a letter before action, sent to
the Minister by lawyers acting for the Badger Trust. This was the
initial stage of the Badger Trust launching a Judicial Review of what
was perceived by the public and the world's media as a decision to
cull badgers made on 8 April, when Elin Jones told the Assembly:

"We believe that the most effective measure to address both sources
of infection and cross-infection, subject to strict regulation and
meeting a number of requirements, would be a targeted cull of badgers
in TB high incidence areas. To take this forward we will prioritise
the establishment of an intensive action pilot in an area which has
been identified as a TB hotspot."

Assembly members, the wider public and the media quite reasonably
regarded this as a decision. The media consistently reported:
"Badgers are to be culled in Wales" (BBC); "Badgers are to be
slaughtered in Wales" (Western Mail); "Badgers must die" (The Times);
"Badgers will be killed" (Press Association); and "Target badger cull
go-ahead" (Farmer's Guardian). The story was reported around the world.

But in response to the letter before action, officials in the
Assembly's Legal Services division have stated:

"In substance, the Ministerial statement on which the potential
[Judicial Review] would be based reflects the beginning of a process
as to how, if at all, particular aspects of the Welsh Assembly
Government’s TB Eradication Programme could be implemented. It does
not authorise the culling of badgers. It does not identify any area
in which the culling of badgers would be appropriate. In particular,
the Ministerial statement does not involve or constitute the grant of
a licence to kill any badgers under the Protection of Badgers Act
1992 or any other legislation."

Trevor Lawson, for Badger Trust, commented:

"Elin Jones gave every impression that a decision had been made and
that badger culling was a 'most effective' measure. Yet a decision
to cull was contrary to the scientific advice that she had received,
which said that killing badgers can make no meaningful contribution
to bovine TB control [1].

"This letter from Elin Jones' lawyers confirms that the Welsh
Assembly Government is still some way behind Hilary Benn, Secretary
of State for the Environment, in assessing the bovine TB problem.
Over the next few months Mrs Jones and her staff will learn that
badger culling is not practical or cost effective and is, besides,
ineffective. We are confident that a badger cull will not take place
in Wales. We regret that Elin Jones has not formally invited Badger
Trust Cymru to meet her, so that she could explain the detail of her
policy.

"Bovine TB is spread by cattle to other cattle and to wildlife. To
say otherwise simply spreads confusion and doubt amongst farmers who
deserve better leadership from their politicians. We hope that
Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for the Environment, will not take
the same ill-thought, short-term approach that has been adopted by
Elin Jones.

"Mr Benn now has a clear opportunity to accept the scientific advice
that he has received and reject badger culling as meaningless in the
battle against bovine TB."

16th April 2008

Leave badger culling to us, minister warns farmers
Apr 10 2008 by Andrew Forgrave, Daily Post
 
TARGETED badger culls in Wales will not be a license for farmers to take matters into their own hands, rural affairs 
Minister Elin Jones has warned.
The Assembly Government will come down hard on farmers who act outside of official culls and illegally kill badgers 
to protect their cattle herds.“I want to make it absolutely clear that the badger remains a protected species and the 
conditions of the Badger Act are firmly in force,” said the minister.“Illegal action will not be tolerated.”

She spoke out after launching a £27m offensive against bovine TB (bTB), including plans for Britain’s first badger cull 
for two decades. All 400,000 cattle in Wales will initially undergo a one-off skin test for the disease, while Cardiff is to 
re-assess the compensation system which now costs over £15m a year.

A crucial element of the plan is to include camelids, such as alpacas and llamas, in the testing regime. Badgers and 
wildlife such as deer will also be tested to ensure the disease is fully mapped. In return livestock farmers will be expected 
to improve husbandry and biosecurity. Removal of TB reactors will also be speeded up.

Ms Jones admitted the decision, in the face of fierce opposition from wildlife groups, had been difficult. Wales’s chief vet 
Dr Christianne Glossop said bTB cases were doubling every five years and the disease was “out of control”. Efforts in North 
Wales would focus on keeping the region disease-free, she said.

No decision had been taken on the location and size of cull areas, the method of culling or who would carry them out, 
Dr Glossop said. South west Wales, a TB hotspot, is expected to be a candidate for a pilot cull which, if successful, will 
be rolled out to other areas. She added: “We have to be realistic – it’s not going to be a quick process.”

Industry groups in England welcomed the decision and called on Defra to follow suit. In Wales NFU Cymru praised Elin Jones 
for “grasping the nettle”. Union president Dai Davies said: “This is a classic example of the need to endure short term pain 
for long-term gain.”

CLA Wales and the Farmers Union of Wales were equally supportive. FUW vice president Brian Walters said: “Those who 
claim we are talking about eradicating badgers are attempting to mislead the general public. Badgers are now one of our 
most common mammals, which are part of the problem.”

Plaid Cymru's Parliamentary leader Elfyn Llwyd also backed the strategy. He said: “Standing still on this is no longer an 
option.However Badger Trust Cymru condemned the eradication programme as a “cynical proposal reflecting sacrificial 
politics at its worst” that could even worsen the problem.

Trust spokesman Trevor Lawson accused the Assembly government of bowing to the powerful farming lobby in Wales 
and cherry-picking scientific evidence. “With 96% of the public opposed to a cull, this will cost the wider Welsh rural economy 
dear,” he warned. “There will be a damaging impact on tourism public support for Welsh farm produce in the culling areas.”

Badger supporter John Brander, from Brentwood, Essex, yesterday contacted Farm & Country to say he was canceling  plans to 
holiday in Wales this summer in protest.

12th April 2008
Major Support from Local Press and Readers
The South Wales Argus has been informing it’s readers about the Badger Cull and it looks to have sided 
with the general public’s views on the matter.

The Newspaper and its website has reported up to date news on the cull and made editorial comments which have drummed up major local support for the Badgers

Please take time to read the reports dated below and the readers’ comments, support like this can make a difference.

8th April – Click Here
9h April – Click Here
10th April – Click Here

Badger Trust Cymru today condemned Elin Jones, the Welsh Assembly  
Government's Minister for Rural Affairs, for proposing a pilot badger  
cull in Wales [1].

Elin Jones has proposed a raft of measures to tackle bovine TB in cattle. These include:

- linking TB compensation to good cattle husbandry;

- annual TB testing for all cattle in Wales;

- removing TB-infected cattle more quickly; and

- identifying a pilot 'INTENSIVE TREATMENT AREA' for reactive badger culling.

Trevor Lawson for Badger Trust Cymru commented:

"This cynical culling proposal is sacrificial politics at its worst and has
nothing to do with science. Last year, the expert scientist on
bovine TB told the Assembly that badger culling would be 'a disease-
control policy ... that actually spreads the disease' [2]. Yet both
the Assembly and Elin Jones have ignored that explicit summary of the
scientific evidence.

"Instead, they have cherry-picked the scientific evidence which suits
the powerful farming lobby in Wales. With 96 per cent of the public
opposed to a cull, this political quid pro quo will cost the wider
Welsh rural economy dear.

"There will be a damaging impact on tourism and on public support for
Welsh farm produce in the culling area. Worst of all, it will cost Welsh tax payers more
in compensation to farmers, since the policy will exacerbate rather than
contain the disease.

"Bovine TB is a problem spread by cattle, not badgers. For example, the movement of untested cattle in the wake of foot and mouth disease
caused a 262 per cent explosion in TB between 2000 and 2002 whilst badger populations remained stable[3].

"It is hard to imagine a more naive and short-sighted political
decision than killing badgers. It is a tragic day for Welsh wildlife that will have
negative repercussions in the rural economy for years to come."

1. Elin Jones spoke to the Senedd at 2pm on 8 April 2008.

2. Professor John Bourne, Chairman of the Independent Scientific
Group which spent ten years and £50 million studying the effects of
badger culling, gave evidence to the Rural Development Sub-Committee
on 20 September 2007. He said that for badger culling to be
effective, "you are looking at badger removal of above 90 per cent of
the population, nearing elimination". But he added that there were
also substantial negative effects which increased the disease and
concluded: "We have provided the scientific evidence that shows very
clearly, I believe, that if you partially cull locally in a reactive
way, you make the situation worse. If you proactively cull over a
large area, there will be winners and losers. Overall, the impact
will be relatively modest and the disease will spread. So, you are
really talking about putting a disease-control policy in place that
actually spreads the disease—there cannot be any precedent ever,
anywhere, of putting a policy in place that is known to spread the
disease." However, under the chairmanship of Alun Davies AM, the Sub-
Committee ignored this advice in its final report.

3. Bovine TB cases rose by 262 per cent between 2000 and 2002 whilst
badger populations remained stable. The same pattern was repeated
across England and into Scotland and detailed research by the
University of Oxford, published in Nature, has shown that cattle
movements were the cause of this increase.

Various links on the web -

GBG Chairman speaks to the BBC Click here

BBC Wales news report Click here

South Wales Argus Click here

Western Mail Click here

2nd April 08
Micro-nutrients may be key to ending bovine TB
by Steve Dube, Western Mail 

WELSH ASSEMBLY officials have been asked to investigate a new approach to the problem of bovine tuberculosis.

The order from Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones comes as the Badger Trust expressed fears that the Welsh Assembly Government could sleep-walk into culling badgers as part of a three-year £27m bTB eradication programme.

Ms Jones wants officials to look into the use of micro-nutrients or trace elements in tackling the disease in badgers as well as cattle.

It follows evidence from former farmer and army officer Danny Goodwin-Jones of his work on hundreds of farms across Britain.

Mr Goodwin-Jones is director of the Carmarthen-based Trace Element Services Ltd, a company he founded in 1982 after a series of trials on his underperforming 150-acre Carmarthenshire farm.

“By trial and error I discovered the vital importance of trace elements or micro nutrients to our stock and was able to correct the problems we were having very quickly,” he said.

Since forming his company Mr Goodwin-Jones has developed techniques of treating pastures with small amounts of missing elements, and he has an archive of correspondence acknowledging success in improving animal health.

“About 10 years ago I began to realise that the increasing incidence of bTb was related to a lack of natural immunity in cattle caused by the imbalance of trace elements,” he said.

Results from farms showed that treatment with trace elements, particularly with selenium and iodine, produced outstanding results. He even maintains that restoring trace elements to an impoverished pasture cuts fertiliser and vets’ bills, reduces problems with lambing and produces more dairy heifer calves than bulls.

“I have no doubt that bTB can be greatly reduced if Wales were to raise the health status of its cattle – and badgers – by improving micro nutrient levels in our land,” he said.

“It would cost only £5m to treat all the pasture land in Wales and the effect on livestock and wildlife, and on up the food chain to human health, would be enormous and save a great deal more than that amount of money.

“My company isn’t big enough to do that, but the remedy is clear, and at the very least some form of intensive localised trial should be implemented in a heavily infested bTB area as soon as possible. Early results should be forthcoming very quickly, probably in a year or so.”

A WAG spokeswoman said Mrs Jones was interested to hear from Mr Goodwin-Jones on the potential benefits of his approach.

“She has asked her officials to meet with him to discuss this further,” she said.

The news comes as Badger Trust bTB adviser Trevor Lawson said a badger cull to tackle bovine TB would be a senseless slaughter.

The National Assembly’s rural development committee has recommended a trial cull of badgers in a closely defined area to assess its potential as part of a series of measures to eradicate the disease.

Mr Lawson drew attention to a new report from the trust that showed Wales with the highest incidence of bTB among cattle in the UK. The report blames the problem on the import of TB- infected cattle in the wake of the foot-and-mouth epidemic, particularly from south-west England.

Mr Lawson said the recommendation for a trial cull was “a cheap political quid pro quo for the farming unions, disguised as scientific research” and would add nothing to the scientific evidence already available.

“There is a very real danger that the Welsh Assembly Government will sleep-walk into badger culling despite the overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work,” said Mr Lawson. “Such a cull will cost Welsh tax-payers millions, wreck tourists’ perceptions of rural Wales and do nothing to control or eradicate bovine TB.

“We very much hope that Elin Jones will have the political wisdom to reject the culling proposal and instead focus all her resources on cattle, which are the real reservoir of bovine TB infection.”

source Western Mail ~ click here

31st March 2008 Badgers in Wales face a senseless slaughter Badgers in Wales face a senseless slaughter, if Rural Affairs
Minister Elin Jones accepts a proposal to kill badgers from the
National Assembly for Wales, Badger Trust Cymru warned today [31
March 2008].

In a new report (attached), Badger Trust Cymru reveals that Wales has
the highest number of TB-infected cattle per 1,000 cattle tested in
the UK. The report shows that the problem can be attributed to the
import of TB-infected cattle in the wake of foot and mouth disease as
well as phases of growth in the Welsh dairy herd using cattle from TB-
infected SW England.

In February, the Welsh Assembly Government adopted a recommendation
from the Rural Development Sub-Committee for a badger cull ‘to
provide further evidence on the effects on the spread of TB of
culling wildlife in an area with hard boundaries’.

But Badger Trust Cymru says that this is a cheap political quid pro
quo for the farming unions, disguised as scientific research. It can
add nothing to the body of scientific evidence already available.

Badger Trust Cymru reveals that Northern Ireland had a similar TB
situation to Wales but has halved the problem in just four years
through better cattle testing, monitoring and enforcement, and
without killing a single badger. In contrast, the Republic of
Ireland has been exterminating badgers non-stop since 2002 and has
not even dented its colossal bovine TB problem.

Trevor Lawson, bovine TB advisor to Badger Trust Cymru, commented:
"There is a very real danger that the Welsh Assembly Government will
sleep-walk into badger culling despite the overwhelming evidence that
it doesn't work. Such a cull will cost Welsh tax payers millions,
wreck tourist's perception of rural Wales and do nothing to control
or eradicate bovine TB.

"We very much hope that Elin Jones will have the political wisdom to
reject the culling proposal from Rural Development Sub-Committee and
instead focus all her resources on cattle, which are the real
reservoir of bovine TB infection."

Download the Badger Trust Cymru TB in Wales info - Click here PDF 915kb

25-02-08

Exposed - The enormous potential for farm to farm spread of Btb

Bovine TB is spreading from farm to farm across distances of tens and even hundreds of miles and it is all perfectly legal, the Badger Trust reveals today[1].

Published as Secretary of State Hilary Benn considers the options for bovine TB control, the Trust's new report shows how farm holdings in TB hotspots are made up of multiple fields that can be many miles apart. Because the fields are all registered as the same holding, cattle can move between them without being recorded and without pre- movement testing. Then, in turn, they can spread TB through direct contact with neighbouring herds.

The situation is further complicated by two systems through which separate holdings can be linked. These systems operate separately at local level and national level, but together provide further loopholes that allow movement recording and pre-movement testing to be avoided.

The Badger Trust report reveals that this pattern of farm structures is consistent in the TB-affected areas of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, though the loopholes vary.

In Northern Ireland, vets acknowledge that this generates an "enormous potential for farm to farm spread". Yet Northern Ireland has virtually halved its TB incidence in just three years by focusing on this problem and treating each TB outbreak as an 'epidemiological event'. Other potentially affected herds are traced by mapping the outbreak farm in detail. No badgers are being killed.

In contrast, the Republic of Ireland is blaming badgers for spreading bovine TB. Yet TB actually increased there by 13% in 2007. The number of reactors in 2007 was nearly identical to the number in 2002, when badger culling was increased.

Meanwhile, in Great Britain, the Government was warned in 2006 that current rules for the movements of livestock 'increases the risk of disease spreading ... and increase the difficulty of tracing any cattle because movements over long distances are unreported to the central database'. Yet so far, little has been done to address this problem, allowing the steady spread of bovine TB between farms.

Report author Trevor Lawson, from the Badger Trust, commented: "It is alarmingly clear that there are simply too many opportunities for cattle to be moved over substantial distances without that movement being recorded and without pre-movement testing. Tax payers are picking up the bill for this ludicrous state of affairs in increased compensation payments, whilst badgers are being scapegoated for a problem that is inherent in the very structure of the farming industry.

"If bovine TB is to be brought under control, Animal Health must be given appropriate IT resources to monitor bovine TB effectively. And the current, complex system must be replaced by one based on a more coherent definition of livestock holdings. Above all, it is imperative that the Secretary of State does not capitulate to the NFU's demand to 'attack' badgers. It is clear in the Republic of Ireland that badger culling fails."

18 / 02/08

Badger Trust Respond to NFU President's Speech

The Badger Trust today accused NFU Pesident Peter Kendall of "resorting to rhetoric rather than realism", in calling on the
Government to "attack all sources" of bovine TB, including badgers.

Commenting on Mr Kendall's proposed speech Trevor Lawson, from the Badger Trust, said: "Mr Kendall is resorting to rhetoric rather than realism by focusing on two lop-sided pieces of research which might as well have been written in cloud cuckoo land. He ignores ten years' worth of research by the Independent Scientific Group[2] which concluded, when costs, benefits and practicalities were taken into account, that badger culling is a waste of time.

"Instead, he highlights a hurried report by Professor Sir David King which completely ignored issues of cost and practicality. And Mr Kendall also highlights a report published last week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, which blamed badgers for spreading TB not because there was actually any evidence for it, but because there had been no attempt to consider in detail other possible factors such as the millions of legitimate but unrecorded local cattle movements. "And although Mr Kendall claims that farmers are prepared to 'play their part', he doesn't mention that 94 per cent of cattle housing is accessible to badgers, even though scientists agree that it is in buildings where there is the greatest risk of direct contact between cattle and badgers.

"In its 100th year, the NFU is the same organisation that it has always been: it blames every disaster of the farming industry's own making on something else and it wants tax payers to subsidise farmers' own bad practices. Badgers have been a scapegoat for farmers for decades and by focusing on an unbalanced set of information, Mr Kendall seems determined to keep it that way."

13 - Feb - 2008

New research published today[1] reveals that recorded local cattle movements are responsible for at least 16% of bovine TB outbreaks.

A further 75% of TB outbreaks are attributed to ‘to local effects within specific high-risk areas’. The researchers are not certain what these local effects are, but say that they are ‘probably the result of the cattle–badger–BTB interaction’.

Trevor Lawson for the Badger Trust commented: "This research is further confirmation that local cattle movements spread bovine TB, just as national cattle movements do[2]. The NFU has previously denied that local cattle movements are a problem. This proves them wrong."

The researchers have been obliged to assume that the management practices for cattle in both ‘high- and low-risk areas are otherwise similar’. In fact, cattle management practices differ massively. Trevor Lawson for the Badger Trust added: “If recorded cattle movements cause 16% of known TB outbreaks, it must be the case that the millions of unrecorded cattle movements between scattered fields on the same holding are also causing outbreaks.

The most accurate result obtained by the researchers assumed that ‘only cattle that have stayed on premises in high risk areas are assumed potentially infectious’. But because the premises is assumed to be just one point on the map, it’s a bit like saying that the place where somebody works is the ‘same premises’ as the place where they live. In fact, it is very common for a livestock premises to have fields 15 or 20 miles from the home farm and in some cases further than that. “In addition, the researchers have not been able to consider infected cattle which have never been tested. Yet around 85% of cattle are never tested for bovine TB in their lifetimes[3], particularly in low risk areas.

The researchers say their conclusions are only robust in the absence of such biases, but the biases are there and they are absolutely massive.“The Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, is currently consulting on the bovine TB problem. It is imperative that he is not swayed by this research which is based on a wholly inadequate set of data. Instead, the researchers should be provided with further resources to assess the role played by the massively fragmented nature of livestock farming in TB hotspots.”

22 January 2008

TB control should be focused on cattle, says Welsh Assembly Committee

Badger Trust Cymru and the Badger Trust have given a broad welcome to a new report [1] on bovine TB from the Rural Development Sub- Committee at the Welsh Assembly. But they warn that a proposal for a badger culling trial in Wales has no scientific validity and will serve no useful purpose.

The report largely focuses on the urgent need for better TB control in cattle. It calls for annual TB testing of cattle throughout Wales and emphasises that better cattle monitoring in Northern Ireland has led to rapid and significant improvements.

The Committee concludes that there is "insufficient evidence to make conclusive recommendations" on the wisdom of killing badgers to control bovine TB.

Instead, it calls for the establishment of an Intensive Treatment Area (ITA) "with hard boundaries" where badgers could be killed "to provide further evidence on the effects on the spread of TB of culling wildlife".

Mike Sharratt, for Badger Trust Cymru, commented:

"We warmly welcome the Sub-Committee's recognition that bovine TB is primarily spread by cattle and exacerbated by an inadequate TB testing regime. The science clearly shows that a much stronger focus on cattle testing will rapidly reverse bovine TB and bring it under control, for the benefit of Welsh farmers and tax payers alike. In Northern Ireland, TB was reduced by 40 per cent in one year by improving the testing regime and the Committee members have seen that system in action [2].

"However, the proposal for a badger-culling trial in Wales serves no useful purpose. Killing badgers in one area, that is not randomly selected and has no scientific control with which to compare the results, will have no scientific validity. It will not be statistically significant. It would make far more sense to spend that money on grants to help farmers keep badgers out of farm buildings. The science clearly shows that badgers' small role in this disease occurs when they are in farm buildings looking for food. A cheap electric fence is all that's needed to prevent direct contact between cattle and badgers, yet Government research has found that 94 per cent of farm buildings are currently accessible to badgers [3].

"Killing badgers will alienate the public, 96 per cent of whom opposed badger culling in a Government consultation. Better cattle testing and excluding badgers from farm buildings is a win-win solution and we hope that the Assembly Government has the wisdom to implement it."

30 December 07 - source - The Independent on Sunday

Tens of thousands of badgers face extermination in attempt to curb TB
Farmers draw up plans for cull, which minister says cannot be legally stopped
Family sett made famous in Bill Oddie's 'Springwatch' TV show within death zone
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 30 December 2007

Tens of thousands of Britain's badgers face the threat of a massive, unprecedented cull.

The controversial move, which is bound to create a public outcry, would defy official recommendations from a 10-year study that the much-loved mammals should be spared, but the minister responsible believes that it cannot legally be stopped.

Farmers, landowners and vets are drawing up detailed plans for a mass extermination of badgers over a vast area of the West Country in the hope of controlling tuberculosis infections in cattle. They hope to start killing the animals this summer and plan to repeat the operation annually for the next three years.

Representatives of 14 leading agricultural and veterinary organisations met two weeks ago and agreed a strategy to start culling badgers, which has been effectively been banned for nearly a decade. And cattle farmers over a broad swathe of Devon and Cornwall are getting ready to put in a joint application to kill as many as possible to try to control the spread of tuberculosis in their herds.

The proposed cull area includes Britain's best-known badgers, on the Fishleigh Estate near Okehampton, whose antics have delighted millions on BBC2's Springwatch.

The plan flies in the face of the conclusions of the official Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB headed by Professor John Bourne, which concluded that killing badgers "cannot meaningfully contribute" to controlling the disease – and might even increase its spread.

The Government has yet formally to decide whether to allow culling – which has in effect been banned for the past decade, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Hilary Benn, insists that he has yet to make up his mind. But the farming and animal health minister, Lord Rooker, is giving it his tacit backing, and believes that, in any case, the Government has "no justification" to reject it.

The National Farmers' Union told The Independent on Sunday yesterday that the plans for the mass cull were being drawn up because "it is the only thing that the Government seems to be prepared to agree to. It appears to be the only game in town".

Both bovine TB and the badger population are increasing rapidly. Infections from the disease are doubling every four and a half years and the number of confirmed incidents has jumped from 125 in 1994 to about 2,000 last year. No one knows how many badgers there are but, by some estimates, their numbers have doubled to 400,000 nationwide since 1990.

Even their strongest defenders admit that badgers act as a reservoir for the disease, getting it from cattle and reinfecting them, but there is huge public opposition to culling them. An official consultation exercise early last year attracted 47,000 responses – three times as many as a similar one on foxhunting – with more than 95 per cent against the slaughter.

Conservationist icons are split on the issue. Prince Charles – whose Highgrove farm is in a TB hotspot – has pushed for culling to take place, but Sir David Attenborough strongly opposes it.

From the mid-1970s, individual farmers were given licences to kill badgers on their land to try to stop them from infecting their cattle, but this stopped in 1998 while the Government carried out official trials on whether it worked. The trials, over areas of 40 square miles, killed 12,000 badgers, but last June Professor Bourne's inquiry – which was set up to assess them – concluded that they often made the problem worse.

This is because diseased badgers fled the culling to infect new areas of the countryside, while uninfected ones were drawn into the killing fields to replace those slaughtered, only to pick up TB themselves.

Ministers, surprised by the report's conclusions, asked Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, to convene a panel of experts, which after meeting for a day and a half, and without talking to Professor Bourne's group, said that culling could work after all.

It picked up a paragraph in the report, which admitted that culling "might be more effective" if carried out over a larger area with boundaries such as the sea, rivers and motorways that badgers would not cross. Professor Bourne attacked Sir David's conclusions as "very superficial" and "very selective", but this is what is now being planned in Devon and Cornwall in an area bound by the sea, the A30 trunk road, and the Rivers Camel and Torridge.

The National Farmers' Union and the National Beef Association have now contacted every sizeable farm in the area and persuaded 70 per cent of the farmers to take part in what would be the first slaughter on such a scale. They would aim to kill every badger they could in a series of annual culls between this year and 2011, when they hope a vaccine would become available.

They accept that they will have to "do the dirty work" themselves and pay for the killing, as ministers are refusing to finance it.

Ministers have said that no decision will be made on the scheme until after an inquiry by a House of Commons select committee has reported early in the new year. But Lord Rooker points out that a clause in the Badgers Act, which otherwise affords them rigorous protection, says that licences to cull them to prevent the spread of disease cannot reasonably be refused. He believes any decision to stop a cull could be successfully challenged in court.

The debate: To cull or not to cull?

Farmers and badger lovers have long fought over whether the animals should be culled, and the planned slaughter will raise the debate to fever pitch. Here are some of the points made on each side:

For

Both bovine tuberculosis and badger numbers are increasing rapidly, putting farmers' livelihoods at stake. There is no hope of controlling the disease while it is being harboured by badgers, who will continually reinfect cattle. Until a vaccine becomes available, culling is the only way of reducing the numbers of infected badgers.

Against

TB is not primarily a badger problem, as 70 per cent of cases are caught from other cattle. Culling badgers only makes things worse, as infected animals flee the killing fields and thereby infect new areas. It is more effective to control the cattle trade and erect electric fences to keep badgers out of barns.

Graham Harvey: The killing fields of Britain
The countryside is the home of TB, illegal hunts and 'commodity farming' that has little to do with good food. Better animal husbandry would help us rediscover our rural roots
Published: 30 December 2007

On the Reading council estate where I grew up our milk was supplied from a local dairy farm which had set up a home-delivery round during the lean years of the 1920s. The milk was totally fresh, and because it was mainly from grass-fed cows it would have been rich in vitamins, anti-oxidants, minerals and the kind of healthy fats that protect against heart attacks and cancer.

Our milk came pasteurised. But it would have been quite safe – and probably healthier – consumed raw. The policy of tuberculin testing had virtually eliminated bovine tuberculosis from the national herd, though it had been a serious scourge in the early years of the century.

Today bovine TB is back with a vengeance. Almost 6,000 cattle herds are currently under restriction in the South-west and West Midlands. The Government is drawing up plans for a mass cull of badgers, seen by farmers and vets as the source of the infection that has led to the compulsory slaughter of 22,000 cattle this year.

It's a controversial strategy whose success is far from guaranteed. Coming after a series of epidemics in the national herd – from mad cow disease to foot and mouth – it poses serious questions about the underlying health of our livestock.

Why do British cattle seem so uniquely susceptible to disease? The human form of TB is principally a disease of people with impaired immune systems. That's why it frequently afflicts cancer patients and Aids victims. When, in the second half of the 19th century, the toll of the dread "white scourge" began to fall, it wasn't drugs that led to the improvement. It was better diet, better housing and better public hygiene.

Given the nature of the TB bacillus you might think the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) would want to find out why the disease has taken such a hold on the cattle population. What has been the effect of concentrating animals into ever bigger herds in overcrowded sheds? What has been the effect of taking cattle off pasture and feeding them what are – for ruminants – unnatural feeds such as cereal grains, maize and soya. It might even be useful to find out why the badger population has suddenly become susceptible to this disease.

Who is to say that the environmental conditions that are weakening the immune systems of cattle and wildlife might not be contributing to the wave of degenerative diseases in the human population? The Government is seeking answers to none of these questions. Instead it is slaughtering tens of thousands of badgers in the hope that this will halt the epidemic.

With much of Britain's agricultural policy now controlled from Brussels, our elected politicians seem powerless to protect us from the consequences of bad farming. In fact, they appear to have no clear vision of what the countryside is for.

On Boxing Day an estimated 300,000 people turned out to show their support for the country's hunts. Despite the ban on hunting, the sport seems more popular than ever. Prosecutions under the 2004 Act are now bogged down in a High Court appeal, and the hunting fraternity clearly think they have the Government on the run. It would be hard to find a better illustration of the Government's lack of direction on rural policy. Here it is stuck with a piece of legislation that is starting to look unenforceable. The tussle with the Countryside Alliance seems certain to distract attention from what really matters in the countryside – what we do about farming.

Since Britain joined in 1973 what was then the European Economic Community, agriculture has undergone a revolution. Everyday foods are simply not what they used to be. In the 1950s and 1960s much of our food was produced on mixed farms, where grazing leys were alternated with cereal crops. This centuries-old pattern produced foods that were rich in nutrients – crops well-endowed with essential trace elements; meat and milk filled with vitamins and omega-3 fats. EU subsidies have destroyed the mixed farm and turned lowland farmers into large-scale producers of low-cost commodities such as wheat and rapeseed. Industrial cropping, with its heavy dependence on chemical fertilisers, depletes soil organic matter and curbs the biological activity without which plants can't take up trace elements.

What you get are dumbed-down crops. Since most go as raw materials to food manufacturing companies, this loss of nutrients is of little concern. So damaging are the processes used by the industrial bakers and the breakfast cereal companies that most natural nutrients are lost anyway. To give their products the appearance of healthiness these companies must add trace elements and artificial vitamins.

Animal foods have gone through parallel process of industrialisation. With cheap, subsidised grains flooding the market many beef and dairy farmers take their animals off pasture for much of the year. Instead they feed them on the industrial grain crops – with unknown health consequences.

Where I live on Exmoor the traditional way to rear beef was to keep a herd of Devon cattle, Red Rubies, and raise the progeny on the herb-rich moorland pastures for three years or so. It would be hard to imagine a more climate-friendly way of producing beef. There were practically no inputs. The evidence is growing that beef produced this way is the healthiest you can buy.

Sadly, this intrinsically low-cost food has seen its market destroyed by the global surplus of subsidised cereal grains maintained for almost 30 years by the EU and the USA. We're well used to reading of the damage caused to developing countries by western grain surpluses. What we're less familiar with is the notion that industrial grain production puts real farmers out of business in our country.

These are issues that the Government has largely ignored if, indeed, it even understands them. Yet it would be hard to think of a more beneficial step politicians could take both for human health and the health of the planet than to get ruminant animals off their deadly grain diets and back on to clover-rich pasture.

During his brief spell as Environment Secretary, David Miliband coined the phrase "one-planet farming" – farming that helps us live within the needs of the planet. Significantly his speech contained no reference to food quality or human health. As it happens, mixed farming would deliver not only the Government's sustainability objectives but also healthier food. But this is an option the politicians appear not to have grasped. Worse, their chosen route to greater sustainability – biofuels – threatens to take British agriculture in precisely the wrong direction.

Commodity cereal growing is a style of farming that can't survive without state subsidies. Two years ago global wheat prices were down to £65 a ton, leaving intensive cereal growers with barely enough margin to cover the cost of fertilisers and pesticides. Without more subsidy from the taxpayer they'd have had little option but to switch out of commodity production and start growing food for people.

George Bush's decision to cover the prairie states with biofuel plants has given industrial grain production a new lease of life. State aid for biofuels are no more than farm subsidies in a new guise. Sadly they put off the day when British agriculture has to return to sustainable mixed farming.

There's just one bright spot. The doubling of wheat prices brought about in part by the demand for biofuel feed stocks, has started to make the feeding of grains to livestock uneconomic. One unexpected benefit of the cereals boom is that we're starting to see cattle moved back on to pasture where they belong.

Though the Government appears not to have noticed, there's one vital question hanging over the countryside: should British farmers be large-scale producers of low-value raw materials for global commodity markets? Or should they be producing high-quality, nutrient-rich foods for the people of these islands?

If Gordon Brown is looking for a new "big idea" to give the Government the initiative on rural affairs, he could do worse than pledge to return good farming and good food to the British countryside. There's no question that the British people are ready for healthier food. Sales of organic food have now topped £2bn. Farmers' markets and vegetable box schemes are thriving. And supermarkets report that their "healthier options" lines are among their fastest-growing products. After decades of being served up with the second rate, the population are now hungry for something better.

The hunting ban was seen by many as a sop to Old Labour for keeping the New Labour project on course. With the growing crowds at hunt meets it's a policy that's looking decidedly jaded. The promise of safer, healthier food from a renewed countryside looks a far more compelling proposition.

2nd November 2007

TB Advisory Group "as good as useless" says Badger Trust

The Government's TB Advisory Group has failed to provide a single, meaningful, cattle-based option for TB control, the Badger Trust said today, even though it was given a year to do exactly that. In a letter to Lord Rooker, published today, the Advisory Group's chairman instead devotes half his energy to discussing the Independent Scientific Group's final report and killing wildlife, neither of which were within the Advisory Group's remit.

The advisory group was established by chief vet Debby Reynolds, who is reported to back badger culling, with the supposed intention of providing practical advice on cattle measures to control bovine TB. It is chaired by pro-badger killing former President of the British Veterinary Association, Peter Jinman. Two of the remaining four members - farmers Bill Madders and Brian Jennings - have also advocated badger killing.

Trevor Lawson, spokesman for the Badger Trust, commented:

"The Government's TB Advisory Group has had a whole year to consider TB control measures other than killing badgers. But it has been a complete waste of time. This talking shop has not come up with a single, specific recommendation on cattle. The chief vet and her advisory group have left the Minister with no specific Plan B for TB control.

"Instead, the group presents a list of cattle priorities for further 'examination', all of which were recommended by the Independent Scientific Group years ago. It has taken 12 months for Mr Jinman's group to tell us what we already know.

"The only useful message for Lord Rooker is that the Government must decide whether its current TB objective is control or eradication. The advisory group recommends focusing on control. That can be quickly achieved solely through cattle-based measures. The trouble is, the advisory group doesn't tell Lord Rooker which ones to use, where or when. It is as good as useless and should be dissolved immediately.

"Instead, Lord Rooker should follow the advice of his Science Advisory Council - given months ago - and establish a science-led TB advisory body with an independent chair."

Download letter to Lord Rooker Click here PDF doc

1st November 2007

Nature slams chief scientist Sir David King over badger cull demand

One of the world's leading scientific journals, Nature, has slammed the Government's chief scientist, Sir David King, for recommending a cull of badgers.

The editorial in Nature, published today, has been welcomed by the Badger Trust.

Nature accuses Sir David King of "mishandling" the question of whether to cull badgers and says that his behaviour "is an example to governments of how not to deal with such advice, once it has been solicited and received".

The respected journal reports that: "... in Britain, scientists have enjoyed a better relationship with their government and - prior to the badgers episode - little evidence has come to light of advisory recommendations from scientists being cooked or spun to match the government's intentions".

It also says that scientists and MPs "rightly criticized" Sir David King "for seeming to go back on the Independent Scientific Group's (ISG) advice, which the Government had itself sought". Nature says that King's later insistence that his conclusions are not very different from those reached by the ISG "ring hollow".

Nature concludes that the Government should base its TB policy on the "unfettered" advice of the ISG, not least because this would be "deeply appreciated" by "scientists in all spheres who choose to participate in painstaking advisory processes in the earnest belief that their advice will actually make a difference to government policy".

Trevor Lawson, public affairs advisor to the Badger Trust commented:

"It is indicative of how low Ministers are prepared to stoop over the question of bovine TB, when it leads to the office of the chief scientific advisor being subject to very personal, damning criticism by one of the world's leading scientific journals.

"But at the root of this fiasco is the constant whispering in the ears of Ministers by cull-mad state vets. Unless Ministers can distinguish between the genuinely independent scientific advice of the ISG and their psuedo-scientific state vets, there is no hope of controlling bovine TB in cattle.

"This disease is costing tax payers millions every year. It perverse that the biggest obstacle to addressing it are the state vets whose obsession with a badger-killing dogma blinds them - and therefore farmers - to the massive, largely hidden reservoir of TB in cattle.

That can only be addressed by cattle-based measures, yet Sir David King has scored a spectacular own goal by encouraging everyone to look in the wrong direction."

Download more info Click Here PDF doc

Read Sir David Kings report on the DEFRA website click here

BOFFINS IN SETT-TO OVER BADGER CULL 25 October 2007

A report from the Western Daily Press

Click here

Science backs the badgers 24 October 2007

A report from Lord Roy Hattersley on The Guardian website

Click here

Science chief urges badger cull 22 October 2007

The UK government's chief scientist has advised ministers that badgers should be killed to prevent the spread of TB among cattle.
Sir David King says culling could be effective in areas that are contained, for example, by the sea or motorways. His report follows a previous study that said culling badgers would be ineffective.

The Independent Scientific Group found that targeting one site would only cause badgers to flee to other farms. The report was submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in July and published on Monday.

Sir David said: "Together with five well-respected experts, I have assessed the ISG report and other research relating to badgers and TB in cattle. "It is clear that badgers are a continuing source of infection for cattle and could account for 40% of cattle breakdowns in some areas. "Cattle controls remain essential but I consider that, in certain circumstances and under strict conditions, badger removal can reduce the overall incidence of TB in cattle."

About 2,500 cattle a year get bovine tuberculosis (bTB), and some 30,000 stock are killed every year because of the disease, according to the National Farmers' Union. The union also believes a cull is necessary to curb TB in cattle.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the issue was "extremely difficult".
Source BBC News Online
Read the Full story click here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7056501.stm

Badger Trust response to the above 22 October 2007

The Badger Trust today ridiculed Prof David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the government for recommending badger culling to control bovine TB in cattle. The recommendation comes without any consideration of the cost involved which makes a mockery the entire policy
.
The Badger Trust is also shocked that this review was conducted in secret and involved advice from the Republic of Ireland where 30 years of badger culling have left Eire with twice the level of bTB in the national herd compared to that found in Great Britain.

The Independent Scientific Group advises that TB can be rapidly reversed and brought under control by improving the cattle testing regime which currently misses around 1in 3 infected cattle leaving them to infect other cattle in the herd.

Various web articles just click the link to read.

Quote by Prof John Bourne

“It would be so helpful if Defra embraced the science and helped farmers and their representatives prepare a science-based course to better control of cattle-borne TB instead of pandering to the voice of the NFU who are saying cull, cull, cull."

Full article Click here

David Milliband response to ISG Report Click here

Badger Trust Spokesman Trevor Lawson on BBC News

Click here Windows media player required or for Real Media click here

and

Click here Windows media player required or for Real Media click here

Even a comment by the Rt. Hon. Lord (Roy) Hattersley Click here

16-06-07

Badger cull would be "meaningless"

"Badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain," the Government's Independent Scientific Group (ISG) on bovine tuberculosis (TB) said today, in its final report[1] which has been welcomed by the Badger Trust Cymru. Instead, the scientists advise that: "[TB] can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone".

The report is the culmination of ten years of scientific research costing £50 million. Almost 11,000 badgers were killed in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), also known as the Krebs trial after Professor Sir John Krebs who proposed it.

Although the team of scientists, from Britain's top universities, concludes that badgers contribute to TB, "[badger culling] policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better".

The scientists point out that only 14 new cases of TB were prevented in herds, despite five years of "coordinated and sustained" badger culling across 1,000km2 [1, p21] that removed approximately 73 per cent of the badgers [1, p69]. The "small beneficial effect on the incidence of TB" results in a cost-benefit analysis which shows that "it seems unlikely [that culling] would be worthwhile under any economic conditions" [1, p159].

Instead, the ISG advises that "substantial reductions" in TB can be achieved by improving cattle-based control measures: "Such measures include the introduction of more thorough controls on cattle movement through zoning or herd attestation, strategic use of the IFN [gamma interferon blood] test in both routine and pre-movement testing, quarantine of purchased cattle, shorter testing intervals, careful attention to breakdowns in areas that are currently low risk, and whole herd slaughter for chronically affected herds" [1, p21 and Chapters 7 and 10].

Steve Clark, a spokesperson for Badger Trust Cymru, said: "The Welsh Assembly can now use this sound science to rapidly reverse TB in cattle. But there are so many undetected, infected cattle out there that constructive support for farmers is vital. Removing that hidden reservoir of infected cattle will hit the cash flow of a minority of farmers very hard. But it is the only way forwards."

He added that there should be a more proportionate approach, recognising the comparatively small role played by badgers. Constructive solutions recommended by the ISG report offered farmers and vets real opportunities to proceed on sound scientific principles, rather than ill-founded prejudices about badgers.

"By controlling TB in cattle, TB will be reduced in Welsh badgers, too. That reduces the risk to cattle even further [1, p21] in a constructive, win-win approach that's good for wildlife and tax payers. We now hope that farmers and vets will see the sense of these approaches."

18-06-2007

NFU SAYS THE FIGHT GOES ON

The NFU has vowed to keep up the pressure for a cull of diseased badgers, in the wake of a report* that confirms that they “contribute significantly” to bovine tuberculosis in cattle.