Bovine-TB-Resources-Toolkit_BW

ContentsPreface .................................................................................................................................................... 2Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 3Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 5Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 7Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7What is Bovine Tuberculosis? ................................................................................................................. 8Bovine TB in England ........................................................................................................................... 8Current testing regime .......................................................................................................................... 10Limitations of the skin test ................................................................................................................ 10Anergy can mask infection ................................................................................................................ 10Skin testing technique is inaccurate ................................................................................................. 11Use of tuberculin at reduced potency .............................................................................................. 11Desensitisation following repeat testing .......................................................................................... 12Immune response during pregnancy and just after birth ................................................................. 12Anti-inflammatory drug administration ............................................................................................ 12Parasites ............................................................................................................................................ 12Genetics ............................................................................................................................................ 13What can be concluded about the skin test? ................................................................................... 13The role of badger culling in disease prevention .................................................................................. 14Evidence against the recent pilot badger culls ................................................................................. 14Thinking outside the current toolbox ................................................................................................... 17Biosecurity ........................................................................................................................................ 17Environmental Reservoirs ..................................................................................................................... 19Protozoa ............................................................................................................................................ 19Invertebrate reservoirs ..................................................................................................................... 19Geological implications - Iron ........................................................................................................... 20Geological implications – Soil pH ...................................................................................................... 20Geological implications – Lime ......................................................................................................... 21Geography and climate ..................................................................................................................... 22Farming practices .................................................................................................................................. 23Cattle movement .............................................................................................................................. 23Herd size ............................................................................................................................................ 24Nutrition ............................................................................................................................................ 25http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree3

Vaccination............................................................................................................................................ 27Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 28Badgers and their role in bovine tb: answers to common beliefs and misconceptions ....................... 29References ............................................................................................................................................ 36Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 42Perturbation ...................................................................................................................................... 42Recent updates ................................................................................................................................. 43http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree4

9. The badger and cattle vaccine (with associated DIVA test) are useful instruments against BovineTB, but both have limitations and EU legislation is preventing the cattle vaccine to be used atpresent.10. It is obvious that there is no simple is answer to eradicating Bovine TB, however with a betterunderstanding of the disease and increased diligence its spread can be controlled.11. Finally, a number of common misconceptions and questions regarding the disease haveappeared in recent years, using evidence-based scientific reference the truth of the situation can beeasily established.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree6

ObjectivesThis document has been created in an attempt to pool as much relevant data and scientificinformation on Bovine TB; what it is, the history of the disease in England, how it can be controlledand the reasons why its eradication has eluded us for so long.Introduction“Bovine tuberculosis (BTB) is an infectious disease of cattle and one of the biggest challenges facingthe cattle farming industry today, particularly in the West and South West of England. It is caused bythe bacterium Mycobacterium bovis (M.bovis), which can also infect and cause TB in badgers, deer,goats, pigs, camelids (llamas and alpacas), dogs and cats, as well as many other mammals.The Government is committed to a comprehensive and balanced approach to tackling bovine TB,with eradication as the long-term goal, but this is likely to take several decades. Our first aim is tostop the disease getting worse and then to reduce the spread and prevalence of the disease to apoint where eradication becomes an achievable goal. Cattle measures will remain central to theGovernment’s approach, which needs to be comprehensive, risk-based and staged.”(Defra, Policy Statement 2012)http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree7

farmers were allowed to kill badgers except where damage or a risk of spreading disease could beshown and then it could only be done under license. Soon after the Act was in place, the first officialbadger culls began [8].During the 1980s the incidence of Bovine TB began a year on year rise [10], though the rate ofincrease was slow at first and thus largely ignored.In 1990, because TB was still at a reasonably low level, the number of herds tested countrywide wasrelaxed. In 1993, the BSE outbreak occurred and testing for TB was interrupted – following BSE theincidence of bovine TB in cattle increased to 2,455 cases [11].In 1995, 316 new cattle herds in the South-West were confirmed as having TB, an increase of 15%from 1994. 32 new cases were recorded in Hereford (compared to 11 in 1994). In 1996 TB hadreturned to being present in over 0.5% of herds in the UK [12].In 2000, before the foot and mouth epidemic 8,123 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered as reactorsor contacts to the Bovine TB skin test [13]. During the foot and Mouth Epidemic of 2001 testing wasonce again interrupted. Subsequent, restocking of farms without prior testing meant that by 2002the number of cattle that were compulsorily slaughtered as reactor or contacts to the Bovine TB skintest had increased to 22,072 [13] (a rise of ~180%). At this time, cases of TB were found in Cumbriafor the first time and these were linked directly to the areas in the South West where the reintroducedcattle had come from [14].By 2006 there had been no cattle movement controls for 16 years and as incidence of the diseaseshowed no sign of reducing under the current control policy, the Government responded byintroducing zero tolerance of backlogs and new movement controls were imposed.In 2008, more tests and more efficient testing methods (including the use of the Gamma Interferonblood test) at shorter intervals were introduced. These tests discovered more disease hidden withinherds and the number of cattle compulsorily slaughtered as reactors or contacts to the Bovine TBskin test plateaued at 39,007 [13]. This is the highest rate of incidence to date and has been reducingyear on year ever since.By 2013, the TB toll had reduced to 24,618 (a ~35% reduction from 2008). As no other restrictions orculls had been in place during this time, this reduction trend can only be attributed to more infectedcattle having been identified and destroyed, tighter cattle controls (which were further restricted in2012) and an increase in cattle testing.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree9

The stage of disease can also factor in its detection. Anergy may occur in recently infected cattle,though there is uncertainty how long this period lasts. Experimental work where cattle infected withmoderate infective doses of M.bovis tested positive within 3 weeks of infection suggests it may notbe very long [20]. And it has long been known that cattle with advanced disease may also becomenon-responsive to the test [20].It has been stated that this significant minority of anergic animals may account for residualbreakdowns following England’s TB Free status in the late 1960s. Failure to achieve total eradicationof the disease is explicable in terms of this undisclosed infection followed by a relaxation of testingand quarantine procedures, plus a failure to understand that most NVL (no visable lesion) cases maynot have lesions, but a significant minority are subclinical carriers [21]. For example, three suchanergic cases caused some 18 herd breakdowns in one parish in Cornwall [19].A proportion of anergic animals will be detected by the Gamma-Interferon blood test, however eventhis is not 100% accurate in its diagnosis [18].Skin testing technique is inaccurateThe current method for reading skin test results remains crude and somewhat subjective relyingupon the application of callipers to measure skin thickness [20].Human error, failure to administer the correct dosage of tuberculin and misinterpretation of theresults may also occur. The Government has been concerned about the quality of bTB testing forsome time. Countries like Ireland already use a system of performance indicators to audit testers.Although these audit methods may be simplistic, potentially leading to false comparisons betweenvets, such monitoring is probably better than no monitoring at all as is the case in England.Here, there is a lack of supervision and monitoring of Local Veterinary Inspector performance by theState Veterinary Service. Not all divisions carry out supervised tests before they are given apermanent appointment and there is no systematic monitoring of subsequent performance.Regarding the monitoring of vets, England only audits vets after 6 months of being trained. In factaccording to AHVLA it has only been since April 2012 that a process has been put in place to ensurethat all vets have a supervised visit within six months of their training. Obviously this auditing doesnot address experienced vets whose standards may be slipping and who may be using equipmentwhich needs to be replaced [22].Use of tuberculin at reduced potencyFor an immune response to present there must be a sufficient dosage of tuberculin injected duringthe skin test. If a vet fails to refill their syringe regularly or inaccurately administers the injection thecattle may not be receiving a sufficient dosage as to react. An account of such an incidence can beread here:“When I have attended tests, I started to notice that all vets, apart from one, were not refilling theirsyringes after injecting 20 cattle. They seemed to be refilling their syringes about every 40 shots (i.e.at about half the recommended frequency). During our tests we are well staffed so I am able toclosely monitor what the vets are doing. After I started to realize what the vets may be doing, in thehttp://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree11

GeneticsRecent studies have identified genetic markers associated with the reaction of cattle to thetuberculin test. Working from this data it has now been shown that cattle with this specific markerreact less strongly to the prescribed test, and hence avoid slaughter, potentially even though theyare infected. Again, this highlights the potential discrepancy between infection and test status andimplies that the effectiveness of the test-and-slaughter policy may be being compromised byselection for cattle that are genetically predisposed to react less strongly to tuberculin [29].What can be concluded about the skin test?There is currently no single test which will fulfil all the criteria necessary to identify all infectedanimals. Of necessity a combination of approaches is likely to be needed to achieve an adequatelevel of diagnosis [20].http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree13

The role of badger culling in disease preventionBetween 1975 and 1981 badgers were culled via the gassing of setts using hydrogen cyanide. Areview of gassing badgers determined that it may not be humane and all subsequent legal culling (inthis country) has been in the form of live trapping and humane killing usually by shooting. This alsoallowed carcasses to be available for scientific research. Between 1986 and 1998 an interim cullingstrategy known as ‘clean ring’ identified and removed clusters of ‘infected’ badgers where therewere instances of Bovine TB test-reactive cattle.At this point a lack of controls in previous culls meant that their effectiveness had not beenscientifically tested and, as the incidence of cattle breakdowns had been steadily increasing despiteculling, in 1998 a thorough trial to establish the true role of the badger in cattle herd breakdownswas designed. The trial, known as the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), cost £50million and,over a period of nearly ten years, culled 11,000 badgers over thirty 100km 2 areas [30]. Theconclusion of this trial was that, although it appeared badgers played some role in cattle herdbreakdowns, Bovine TB could be better controlled through improved farm practices, tightened cattlerestrictions and biosecurity measures. The peer reviewed recommendation on culling badgers wasthat it would make “no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain” [31].For almost 40 years badgers have been culled in Britain to try and control Bovine TB and over thatsame period the incidence of disease in cattle has risen... Einstein is quoted as saying that “thedefinition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”, yet thisis precisely what current government policy aims to achieve.The justification of culling is substantiated via RBCT results; that long-term estimates (over 9.5 yearsincluding 5 years of culling) of the average net impact of proactive culling of circular areas of 150km 2were 3–22% (central figure 12%) or 8–24% (central figure 16%) [32]. However, these results are onlyachievable if the RBCT methodology is duplicated as closely as possible.Recent mathematical analysis of the RBCT data suggests that only 5.7% of the transmission to cattleherds is via badgers [32] which adds further doubt to the importance of their role in cattlebreakdowns.The level of TB in cattle had dropped to under 1,000 reactors before initial culls of badgers began.The incidence of reactor herds in Britain was in decline throughout the 1960s and continued to fallover the next ten years, except in South West England, where the situation remained static.Evidence against the recent pilot badger cullsThe aim of the pilot culls conducted by Defra are “to test the assumption that controlled shooting isan effective method of badger removal, in terms of being able to remove at least 70% of the startingpopulation in the area, over the course of a six week cull”. [33]No monitoring of cattle Bovine TB incidence within the pilot areas or incidence of disease within thebadgers culled will be undertaken. The culls are purely occurring on the assumption that badgers areinfected and that their removal will reduce disease incidence in cattle.The scientific justification that the government is using is from extended data accumulated fromwithin the RBCT trial zones. This evidence concluded that culling over four years in a hypotheticalhttp://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree14

area of 150 square kilometres – killing an estimated 1000 to 1500 badgers – could achieve a netreduction of herd infections of around 16 per cent within nine years. This could potentially equate topreventing 47 out of 292 TB infections that would result in a farm being locked down [34].However, the methodology of the pilot culls is so far removed from that of the RBCT that the resultscannot be related; one of the principle conclusions of the Independent Science Group (ISG) duringtheir peer review on the RBCT was that “Alternative methods of culling than those used in the RBCTwould confer no advantage and could lead to further detrimental effects” [35]Furthermore, “trying and failing to achieve a cull is likely to make matters worse; increasing theincidence of disease in cattle and spreading infection to new areas.” [31]Although justification of culling is occurring on the premise of eradicating Bovine TB from cattle andwildlife, key aspects of the policy do not add up.Badgers have long been implicated in the UK as a reservoir for Bovine TB, however the mechanismsof maintenance and spread of M.bovis infection, within and between populations of cattle andwildlife, is still relatively poorly understood [36]. There is even conjecture as to whether badgers canmaintain the disease, or whether they are merely a spill-over host [37].New research does suggest that the, if it exits, the path of infection is indirect, for example, viacontact with faecal excretions, rather than from direct interaction between badgers and cattle [38]and this clearly has disease management implications – chiefly via biosecurity measures.Nevertheless, as M.bovis is zoonotic, to focus on one specific wildlife host without understanding theexact mechanisms of disease transference between species is irresponsible.Setting aside the fact that the strategy is restricted solely on cattle restrictions and the culling of onesingle wildlife reservoir (thus failing to take action for any of the points raised within this document),the pilots themselves appear to hold no function:Changes in the initial population estimate figures occurred on three occasions; for acull to remove 70% of a population a tangible population estimate needs to be established.Any moving of “goalposts” during or after the culls have taken place undermines theconfidence of the method of counting or department involved [39].A Freedom of Information request revealed that only 43 per cent of the landinvolved in Gloucestershire incorporated cattle or dairy farms, in West Somerset, only 60 percent of the participating farms have cattle. So why target badgers on land where cattle arenot at risk? As perturbation is a real risk associated with culling, any social groups of badgerswould be better left – disturbing their social structure could cause perturbation leading to anincreased incidence of disease in badgers and a potential spread of the disease from theseareas into ones occupied by cattle [40].The culls were established to test whether open-shooting was an effective methodof badger removal (“to remove 70% over a six week period”). After the initial six week onlyhttp://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree15

850 badgers were removed in Somerset (60%) and 708 in Gloucestershire (40%) [41].Another aspect of the pilot culls was to establish whether open-shooting washumane. However, FOI requests made by the RSPCA to Owen Paterson illustrate that therewere no underlying parameters set to conclude a how ‘humane’ is defined [42].In summary, it seems that the current Government’s ‘Bovine TB Eradication Strategy’ is flawed on anumber of levels. It has selected only certain data from a controlled trial which was undertaken withan entirely different methodology to attempt to substantiate its justification. The initial criteria forthe culls have all failed to be achieved and, therefore, to roll them out further in an attempt tocombat Bovine TB in cattle is foolhardy at best.Piecemeal policies with no scientific standing and a lack of clear objectives will only undermineconfidence in Defra and its Ministers to adequately fulfil their roles. After 30 years of repeating thesame routine it is evident that, although badgers are somehow involved, our knowledge of theprocesses concerned is deficient. This country can become TB Free, however, for this to become areality, a thorough understanding of all the established scientific evidence is required; it may taketime, money and lateral thinking to achieve, but if it is given proper commitment instead of “gesturepolitics” (any political action focused on public opinion or publicity rather than making a significantchange or contribution), it can be done.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree16

13. A period of statutory standstill for livestock on farms that have bought/brought in animals14. Membership of commercial herd/flock health schemes (e.g. Premium Cattle Health Scheme orSheep and Goat Health Scheme)15. Establishing disease free zones with neighbouring farms within suitable geographic boundaries.16. Implementing routine blood or other diagnostic disease screening at purchase.17. VaccinationAlthough not compiled for cattle, a comprehensive and detailed review of the whole range ofbiosecurity measures that need to be addressed to minimise the risk of diseases entering pig herdswas presented in October 2013. Many of these can be adjusted to apply to cattle and can be foundhere: http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/4536/biosecurity-top-tipshttp://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree18

Environmental ReservoirsAs well as ensuring that disease isn’t spread into a farm, biosecurity measures can also be applied toprevent the persistence of pathogens. The Bovine TB bacteria, M.bovis, is very resistant and is ableto remain active for long periods of time, even in the absence of an animal host, within the soil,contaminated equipment, feed, slurry etc. [45]Depending on seasonal conditions, M.bovis bacilli can remain viable for extended periods up to 88days in soil, 58 days in water and hay, and 43 days on corn [46]. Other studies have shown that TBcan persist environmentally for perhaps 2 years, within cow pats for a year, or 5–7 months inmanure, slurry and water [21].ProtozoaIf ingested by protozoa (single celled organisms) M.bovis may remain viable for over a year [47] evenwithin an environment for which it is not well adapted.Apart from being potentially infectious to cattle, either by ingestion or more likely via respiration inan aerosol form, there is a possibility that the presence of environmental M.bovis could compromisetest-and-slaughter programmes for bTB control and help explain bTB persistence. If cattle are inregular contact with other species of environmental mycobacteria they may become desensitizedand this can compromise cattle immune responses to the skin test, causing cattle to remain skin-testnegative even though they are potentially infectious. [48]Studies of molecular monitoring of environmental M.bovis have clearly shown survival in bothmonitored farm field sites and controlled soil microcosms. In one study, Bovine TB breakdownspersisted within restocked herds despite the complete removal all cattle and badgers from the farmunder investigation. [49]Invertebrate reservoirsAlthough M.bovis can persist for long periods within protozoa, its spread in this state is limited.Invertebrate vectors, such as earthworms, dung beetles, fleas and ticks, may have a key role here.Defra have already funded research into the potential importance of invertebrates [50], otherstudies have implicated earthworms as vectors of mycobacterial disease: “Earthworms constitute asignificant component of soil organisms. Most ingested microorganisms pass through the digestivetract and are excreted in the faeces. However, some species of bacteria can propagate in thedigestive tract and survive in egg cocoons of the earthworm.” [51]http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree19

Geological implications – LimeLime is a natural bactericide. The results of a study where lime was spread on farms in Michigansuffering from high rates of mycobacterium infection concluded that lime treatment (which reducessoil acidity and thus iron availability) reduced infection of cattle after a three year period had passed.[52]In Britain, lime subsidies ceased after entry to the European Union. Many direct grants and subsidieswere discontinued at this time, those for fertilizer and lime ended in 1974. [54]Although this evidence is circumstantial, the decline in lime use (as illustrated in the graph above)does correlate to the increase in Bovine TB incidence throughout the 1980s and onwards [55] [56].http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree21

Geography and climateAs noted previously, seasonal conditions influence the prevalence of M.bovis bacteria within theenvironment. Warmer, wetter conditions are important to the bacteria’s survival, however, weatherpatterns also determine wildlife behaviour and farming practices. During periods of heavy rainfalland extreme weather conditions, the outdoor grazing of cattle may be limited leading to anextended period of cattle housing which can exacerbate the risk of cattle-to-cattle diseasetransmission. Heavy rainfall also leads to the abundance in the availability of worms and otherinvertebrates, which are a staple diet of badgers, resulting in a reduction to the frequency of farmvisits for alternative foods. [57]These warmer, wetter weather conditions are also implicated in the rise in incidence of liver flukeinfection in cattle and sheep. And as mentioned in the ‘parasite’ section of this document, the flukemay alter key cells in the immune system which are crucial to a genuine result in both the skin testand Gamma-Interferon test [20][28].The map below shows rainfall patterns within the UK, it can be seen that, as with the maps for ironcontent and soil pH, rainfall is most prevalent within the South West region of the country. Althoughyou cannot control the weather, it is important to understand how climate is implicated as this maybe a reason why M.bovis has always persisted in the south west.http://www.british-towns.net/weather/uk-annual-rainfallhttp://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree22

Farming practicesCattle movementRecent mathematical analysis of the RBCT data suggests that ~94% of the transmission of Bovine TBis cattle-to-cattle. Cattle to cattle transmission is a serious cause of disease spread which isstatistically substantiated by scientific evidence. [58]Cattle movements have more than quadrupled between 1999 (3,373,646) and 2010 (13,690,294)and have involved around 164 million animals. [59]Livestock movements are recorded in the Cattle Tracing System data archive and it has been shownthat from areas where bTB is reported, movement consistently outperforms environmental,topographic and other anthropogenic variables as the main predictor of disease occurrence. [59]It has been estimated that due to an unreliable testing regime, up to 40% of infections may bemissed within herds. [60]Recently published data indicates that, because of this, in the worst-case scenario, up to 21% ofcattle herds may be harbouring at least one infected animal when movement restrictions are lifted.[61]Cattle movements have already been identified as the cause of numerous Bovine TB breakdownsover the last few years and so it is important to adhere to the testing, biosecurity and movementcontrols in place [62] [63] [64]. Furthermore, diligence is especially required for new cattle movinginto a farm, Defra instigated a policy following the Foot and Mouth outbreak of 2001 to minimisedisease spread which states: “movements must not take place from any premises where one or moreanimals have been moved in the six day period prior to the movement”. However, there is nowpressure for this policy to be dropped which, if it occurs, would undermine the biosecurity systemfurther. [65]http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree23

Herd sizeDairy and meat produce are as high today as they have always been, despite a decline in the numberof active farms. In part the rate of production has remained high due to farm sizes increasing,between 2002 – 2007 farm sizes increase by 17.9%, during the same period the number of activefarms fell by 16.3%.VetNet data shows that herd size is positively correlated with disease persistence. Since economicpolicy and subsidies have been shown to influence farm size, it can be concluded that the ideal farmsize for financial and efficiency gains may contribute to increased disease incidence. [66]Cattle density within Britainhttp://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree24

NutritionIn the last century and particularly since World War 2, there has been a progressive intensification ofagricultural production in the UK to meet the needs of an increasing population and to achievesuccessive governments’ aims of food self-sufficiency. The industry has responded well to thischallenge, producing yields undreamed of even 50 years ago. However, by increasing yields our soilquality has been diminished. Soil nutrients have been stripped at a greater rate than Nature canreplace them, via the natural weathering process. In addition the amount of synthetic fertilisers,pesticides and herbicides has increased. This action has created imbalances of mineral nutrients withacute deficiencies of some and excess amounts of others. This action has also been detrimental tomany of the beneficial soil microbes. It has become a vicious cycle, as the faster microbes are killed,the more dependent on chemicals agriculture becomes. This process can be seen when a hithertointensive, conventional farm goes into organic conversion; yields collapse because, despite the NPKstatus, there are insufficient remaining microbes and trace element reserves to support adequateplant growth and disease resistance. [67]In recent years the decline, particularly in selenium levels, seems to have accelerated in parallel withthe increased use of ammonium fertiliser. It has now reached the point where both the animal andhuman food chains are gravely deficient, not only in selenium, but also cobalt, copper, boron, iodine,zinc and others. The animal immune system depends on optimum blood levels of five traceelements, zinc, selenium, cobalt, copper and iodine. [67] Minerals and trace minerals are thebuilding blocks of nutrition, but have been largely ignored for generations.The poor supply of mineral nutrients is directly or indirectly the culprit of disease prevalence. Forexample; if all plants are severely deficient in selenium, then so too are the earthworms, insects,small mammals, predator animals, etc. as the entire food chain is affected. (It is a matter of recordthat 85-90% of all UK soils are deficient in selenium.) [68]Other extensive research has concluded that the spread of maize farming from the South Westnorthwards ties in exactly with the spread of TB. Prior to this, TB had been virtually eliminated andwas almost considered a non-problem. Both badgers and cows, in a healthy state, have immunesystems that react quite efficiently to pathogens, with most diseases being overcome without thehost body even being aware. This is first stage defence, and is dependent on the host body being ina good state of health. If the diet is deficient in certain key nutrients, or if the host is subject tostress, this will result in an underperforming immune system which will let the pathogen in andtrigger the second stage of defence – a whole-body response to the infection. This is evident invisible signs of illness (symptoms) and result in either recovery or deterioration, possibly even death.Maize which forms part of the staple diet of cattle (and also a favoured food for badgers) is deficientin selenium and vitamin E, both vital to immune system health. [69]Selenium, specifically, is involved in the production of antibodies and in the killing of microorganisms,such as bacteria. Unsupplemented cattle at pasture, such as late lactation or dry cowsand cycling heifers are much more likely to show signs of selenium deficiency than housed cattle ona balanced mineral ration. [70]http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree25

http://dasweb.psu.edu/pdf/se&vite.pdfhttp://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree26

VaccinationVaccination by intramuscular injection of BCG reduces the risk of Bovine TB infection of free-livingvaccinated badgers by 76%. In addition, the risk of unvaccinated badger cubs, but not adults, testingpositive to diagnostic tests decreases significantly as the proportion of vaccinated individuals in theirsocial group increased. When more than a third of their social group had been vaccinated, the risk tounvaccinated cubs is reduced by 79%, so even vaccinating a small number can have huge benefits.Reducing the likelihood of badgers testing positive for TB reduces the amount of TB potentiallyexcreted in badger urine and faeces and should therefore decrease the risk of cattle coming intocontact with the bacteria. [49] [71] [72]Studies have shown that vaccination doesn’t exacerbate the disease in already infected badgers.Nor does it increase excretion of bacteria or lead to an increased risk of transmission of Bovine TB.Furthermore, because the structure of the badger group is left intact perturbation (the increasedranging behaviour which may result in greater opportunities for contact with badgers from othersocial groups that can lead to an increase in the spread of infection) does not occur. [73] Badgershave been trapped, anaesthetised and sampled routinely at the FERA Woodchester study site forover 30 years and perturbation of the badger population has not been observed. [74]Cattle vaccination could have benefits in reducing the prevalence, incidence and spread of TB in thecattle population and could also reduce the severity of a herd breakdown regardless of whetherinfection is introduced by wildlife or cattle.The BCG vaccine can sensitise cattle to the tuberculin skin test for some time after vaccination andtherefore lead to a ‘false’ positive result when an animal is not actually infected with M.bovis.However, a ‘differentiate infected from vaccinated animals’ (“DIVA” test), based on GammaInterferon blood test technology, could be used alongside the tuberculin skin test, to confirmwhether a skin test positive result is caused by infection or vaccination. [75]At present EU legislation will not allow the use of a cattle vaccine as only cattle which test negativeto the skin test can be exported and these restrictions will have consequences for trade in cattleproducts.Cattle vaccination is obviously an important tool in the fight against Bovine TB, however until the EUlegislation is changed, it cannot legally be used.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree27

SummaryThis document has outlined the evidence that controlling Bovine TB is not a straight forwardpractice. Not everything which causes the disease to prevail is controllable on a farm level(moreover, in cases linked with climate it cannot be controlled directly at all), but it does highlightthat piecemeal cattle controls and a poorly executed cull of a wildlife host are not sufficient.Bovine TB is clearly a very complex problem and at present, despite years of research, there is noobvious simple solution to it.It is clear that the badger is involved in the epidemiology of TB in cattle, but also that badger cullingcannot meaningfully contribute to solving the problem in the UK.There is a clear need to continue investigations into various aspects of the epidemiology of thedisease, into methods of control and, particularly, into the efficacy and feasibility of vaccination.There is also a need to ensure that the costs and benefits of any proposed control measures are fullyevaluated, not only in financial terms but also in terms of the impact on badgers and other wildlife,and on the farming industry.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree28

Badgers and their role in bovine tb: answers to common beliefs andmisconceptionsEven in the 1970s, when the disease was reduced to its lowest point, Bovine TB wasn’t completelywiped out, surely badgers must have been the reason it remained?The current test used to determine infection in cattle, the ‘skin test’, is not 100% accurate. Itsaccuracy is ~80% and so false diagnoses may be recorded, it is also unable to diagnose latent oranergic infection. It has been calculated that up to 40% of infections may be missed using thecurrent skin test [76] and that as many as 21% of cattle herds may still harbour infection whenmovement restrictions are lifted [61].These statistics are more than sufficient to explain why disease remained in high density cattlepopulation areas; they can also be attributed to the steady year on year rise in Bovine TB cattleincidence during the 1980s.No other country has eradicated Bovine TB without controlling the wildlife reservoir, so whyshould England be any different?Bovine TB is a zoonotic bacteria which is able to infect multiple host species. It is able to infect a hostand remain dormant for many years without causing any visible symptoms and it can remain viableoutside of a host for at least 15 months (given ideal conditions) [49]. Due to these factors, totaleradication of the disease is unlikely; the most we can expect to achieve is to control it at a minimallevel.To find an example of a country which has become TB Free without controlling wildlife, you do notneed to look very far; England was able to achieve an official TB Free status in the late 1960s throughcattle controls alone [77].Tests show that badgers have more infection than other animals, doesn’t this means they must beto blame?Wild animals, including badgers, are not tested for TB except in rare circumstances. It is thereforeimpossible to accurately state that badgers are the main reservoir of disease. Of the tests that havebeen made, the following data is available:In 2006 the Welsh Assembly Government tested around 450 badgers that had been found dead inWales. Most of these had been found on roads, and post-mortems confirmed that these had beenhit by cars [78]. The results showed that 13.3% of badgers (around 1 in every 8) were infected withTB. In some areas of southern Wales as many as 1 in 4 badgers were found to be infected. InPembrokeshire, the rate of badger infection was found to be 15% (around 1 in 7).Of the 11,000 badgers culled during the RBCT, 16.6% were found to have Bovine TB, however, only1.7% of these had sufficient infection to excrete the disease to other animals and there wassubstantial variation in prevalence between counties and between years [35].http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree29

Durham University performed a survey of road killed badgers and, during two decades of testing,only found one out of 400 badgers which had any infection [79].All these surveys show that the prevalence of disease is not endemic; they have also been used toquestion whether badgers are a maintenance reservoir or merely a spill-over host for the disease.It should be noted that, regardless of the prevalence of disease, no trial to date has managed todetermine the exact route in which cattle may contract bovine TB from badgers.Finally, during the pilot culls approximately 1,600 badgers were culled, but none of these animalswere tested for TB. Failing to collect as much up-to-date information as possible on diseaseprevalence in the badger population, which could have added to and enhanced our currentunderstanding of the situation, further demonstrates the irrelevance of the culls.As badgers suffer terribly when they have Bovine TB, won’t culling them be the humane option?Badgers have lived side by side with cattle, and thusly M.bovis, for millennia. It has been establishedthat, possibly through natural selection, most infected badgers have no visible lesions and cansurvive for many years without becoming sick [80]. There is some evidence that they are able to selfhealand any badgers observed with severe symptoms or lesions may be in the later stages of life orsuffering from another disease which weakened their immune system [81].Animals die of diseases naturally, but research has shown that TB is not an important cause of deathof badgers. Furthermore, as none of the badgers within the culls are to be tested for disease, there isa counter argument over whether killing thousands of healthy badgers to remove a few unwell onesis a constructive approach to disease control [82].Badgers live underground in warm, humid setts, this is the ideal habitat for the M.bovis bacteria,and doesn’t that prove that they are the ones harbouring infection?Rabbits, moles and rodents are also Bovine TB hosts and they also live in burrows under the ground.Foxes are also a host and they often take shelter within the burrows of other animals. None of theseanimals are currently being implicated as a TB reservoir, despite having similar habitat preferences.Tests have found that the soil around a badger’s sett contains M.bovis bacilli, so doesn’t thatmean that these setts contain infected badgers?M.bovis can remain in the soil for at least 15 months [49], it can also survive within protozoa withinthe soil [47] and can be spread via invertebrates such as dung beetles, earthworms and slugs [51]. Apositive result for the bacteria in the soil does not prove that the badgers in that region are alsoinfected with the disease.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree30

As badgers are vermin, shouldn’t farmers have the right to remove them from their land?Badgers have never been officially designated as vermin; to the contrary, they are one of thiscountries last remaining indigenous large mammals [83]. Although they have been known to dig upgardens and raid maize crops, this is not a sufficient reason to destroy them.Furthermore, due to the complexities of badger behaviour, any culling would have to besynchronised, coordinated and controlled, simply killing a badger as and when you see one on yourland would break the local groups’ social structure and may cause perturbation which could worsenthe situation [84].Vaccines aren’t ready, so how can we vaccinate badgers against TB?An injectable BCG vaccine has been available since 2012, the Welsh Assembly Government havebeen using this for the last 2 years and so far it has proved to be a more cost efficient option thanculling [85].But you need to vaccinate a badger for five years, how can you make sure you are vaccinating theright badger all the time?The BCG vaccine only has to be administered once to provide immunity to disease, the reason thatvaccination trials are carried out over five years is to ensure that as many new generation cubs areinoculated within a sett [86].How are you supposed to vaccinate every badgers, it’s not like you can round them up like we dowith cattle?You do not need to vaccinate 100% of any animal, including humans, to create immunity within thepopulation. To prevent the disease form establishing a foot hold you merely need to reduce thenumber of available hosts. When more than a third of their social group had been vaccinated, therisk to unvaccinated cubs was reduced by 79%, therefore, within a stable social structure, badgergroups, with limited mixing of individuals between groups, lends itself to the generation of this ‘herdimmunity’ through vaccination [71] [74] [87].http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree31

As badgers don’t have any natural predators, their numbers have increased exponentially andtheir population needs to be controlled.There is no proof that this is the case. A rise in numbers was shown between the last two officialnational population surveys, but this rise could merely be a recovery following the introduction ofthe Protection Act and cessation (or reduction) of persecution. Woodchester Park has been studyingpopulations for over 30 years and has no record that their populations have exponentially increased,they are slow to reproduce and their numbers are limited to available resources and habitat [88]. Onthe contrary, the latest official surveys for the badger populations within the pilot cull areas showeda sharp decrease in their numbers [39].Infected badgers dribble urine saturated in bacteria as they roam and feed, this is how theycontaminate livestock food sources and water troughs.Badgers do not ‘dribble urine’, instead they tend to have designated latrine zones within theirterritory. Bovine TB attacks the respiratory and/or pulmonary systems; it does not affect an animal’sbladder or cause incontinence [80]. Furthermore, simple biosecurity measures can ensure thatbadgers have minimal access to food sources or water troughs.There is no available vaccine, so culling is the only option.A BCG badger vaccine has been available and licensed for use since 2012. Badgers are beingvaccinated now by injection both in Wales and some areas of England; so far this has been less costlyand more effective than culling via ‘open-shooting’ or cage trapping [85]. Trials with the BCG vaccinehave shown a 76% reduction in badgers testing positive for Bovine TB, it reduces the chance of nonvaccinatedcubs from becoming infected and does not cause them to leave their territory and spreadthe disease further (perturbation) [89]. There is also a cattle vaccine which is being used in Ethiopiaand has shown positive results (much better than the result that can be achieved with a cull) [90].The cattle vaccine cannot currently be used for products or animals which are destined to beexported because of EU regulations. Steps are underway to allow its use and, although it may taketen years for the regulations to change [91], as any results produced from culling take at least 9years to become evident, pushing ahead with vaccine trials and pressuring the EU to allow the use ofa vaccine, while increasing cattle controls and on-farm biosecurity measures may produce greaterpositive results within the same timeframe.You can’t vaccinate an infected badger.The BCG vaccine will not immunise an already infected badger, but it will prevent the disease fromspreading to other badgers within a sett. Infection in badgers usually occurs later in life when theirimmune system is weakened and so after five years of vaccinating any diseased animals should havedied out leaving a healthy, immune population [92].http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree32

As we test cattle we are controlling that source of infection, this must mean that there are otherreservoirs of infection causing the disease to persist and spread.Not all cattle are tested on an annual basis, only 49% of cattle were tested in 2012 [93]. The methodof testing, the skin test, is not 100% efficient and may be influenced by a number of externalparameters, including infection via liver fluke, Johne’s disease and avium (bird) TB [94]. It has beencalculated that up to 20% of cattle may still be infected when they are cleared for movement and areservoir of hidden infection within cattle is statistically more hazardous than a potential wildlifehost [61].The Thornbury culls show that if you remove badgers you remove Bovine TB.The Thornbury badger clearance has been quoted as irrefutable evidence for-badger to-cattletransmission. Between 1975-1981 badgers were totally cleared from 104 sq kilometres centred onThornbury, Avon. Setts were gassed with hydrocyanic acid and recolonisation prevented by furthergassing until 1981, after which it was allowed to proceed. The 104 herds in the area were thereafterfree of TB until 1992. The decline of the disease, in step with badger clearance was studied byClifton-Hadley et al. from detailed records of reactor numbers, false positives and false negatives.The authors concluded that "eradication of tuberculous badgers resolves the cattle problem for atleast 10 years." [95]However, controls were not in place for these trials and neither the researchers nor those that quotethe Thornbury experience as proof of badger culpability ask the question: “what was happening tothe cattle after 1975?”There is no record how many were culled apart from the reactors, presumably because it was notthought relevant. We do know, though, that from the mid seventies, two factors operated toincrease the severity of culling. First, farmers were buying in high yielding Holsteins, and getting ridof their long lived Friesians. Second, in 1975 the EU expansion programme started, with largesubsidies available for bulk tanks, new cubicle houses and money for Holstein replacements.Moreover the researchers ignored the fact, pointed out in the Dunnet Report that there was asimilar drop in TB reactor incidence throughout the rest of England and Wales where virtually nobadger gassing took place. Defra's Consultation Document gives an updated version of the DunnetReport graph, showing the rest of England and Wales TB levels fall and rise in parallel to the areas inthe South West [96].When TB declines, no conclusions can be drawn from the effects of badger culling, unless the effectsof cattle culling are also assessed. The reason for the overall decline could be attributed to theremoval of anergic carriers. Its present resurgence may be due to their return, hastened by anaccelerating soil depletion of trace elements, and aggravated by cattle mobility.MAFF/Defra failed to ask the critical question because for thirty years it was believed that cattle-tocattletransmission was of minimal importance. This assumption was not challenged by the scientificestablishment until the ISG took it up in their 2nd Report: "We consider the issue has not beenadequately addressed in the past and may be of greater practical significance than has beenhttp://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree33

appreciated". In 2003 the over-riding importance of cattle-to-cattle transmission was proved viaspoligotesting (DNA tracing of reactor cattle to their place of origin) and the need to restrict cattlemobility was at last recognised by Defra [96].Badgers kill ground nesting birds, hedgehogs and bees, therefore if you reduce their population,you will be helping to improve biodiversity.Badgers have lived for millennia symbiotically alongside all the native animals they have beenaccused of reducing. Badgers are opportunistic omnivores and will eat a large variety of plants,invertebrates, carrion and small animals, but there is no proof that they are the main reason for thecurrent decline in other species. Neither the RSPCA, RSPB or any wildlife or hedgehog organisationagree with these claims. There are many other factors, which include the use of slug pellets, use offences to segregate gardens, loss of habitat due to development and changes to farming andlivestock methods that have been proven to have aided the recent decline in other native animals[97] [98].Ireland is proof that culling badgers reduces TB in cattle.If you look at the history of Bovine TB incidence in England, Northern Ireland and the Republic ofIreland in detail, it is almost impossible to reach a clear conclusion on the advisability or otherwise ofbadger culling.Each country has had very different histories in regards to controlling the disease and yet they seemto have ended up with roughly the same bovine TB prevalence [99].As can be seen from the graph, the trends in each country are very different.In Northern Ireland the percentage of cattle found to be reactors was around 0.5%in 1999, but it then increased sharply in 2002. This probably resulted from the breakdown ofthe Bovine TB testing system following the 2001 Foot and Mouth (FMD) outbreak. Thisresulted in both increased local cases and import of untested animals to replace animalsculled. Once testing was re-established, TB declined again to its previous level up till 2010.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree34

In the Irish Republic the percentage of reactors declined slightly from around 0.6% in1999 to around 0.4% where it has stayed ever since.In Great Britain it was low in 1999, but increased sharply in 2002 (as in NorthernIreland) following the FMD outbreak. However, unlike Northern Ireland, the rate of decreasehas been slower [99].New Zealand is almost TB Free and they cull their wildlife reservoir.The reservoir in New Zealand is the bushtail possum, a non-indigenous animal which becameestablished in the country after being released in the 1800s as part of the fur trade. The comparisonbetween possums and badgers is tenuous as their ecology and behaviour are very different. Unlikebadgers they are prolific breeders (there are now more than 35 million of them throughout thecountry), they are detrimental to the general environment as they compete with native wildlifethrough eating native fruit and vegetables, they cause deforestation through stripping young shootsand bark from trees and they also eat eggs, baby birds (including the Kiwi) and small indigenousmammals. They do not live in social groups like badgers, so perturbation is not an issue, they aremore mobile and are more likely to come into direct contact with cattle, and they can exist happilyon the ground and up in the highest trees [100] [101].As they are hazardous to the country’s ecology they are actively hunted and culled for numerousenvironmental reasons other than Bovine TB, using numerous and sometimes controversialmethods, and with a high level of government funding.Bovine TB has cost this country £500 million in the last ten years, it will cost £1 billion over thenext decade if nothing is done.No one is stating that nothing should be done; all parties agree that Bovine TB is an issue whichneeds to be tackled. In 2012 new controls were put in place with cattle, this year it is planned thatuse of Gamma Interferon blood tests will be used alongside the standard skin test (in some areas)and fines for late testing have also been imposed.Furthermore, over the last ten years a lot of money has been invested in researching solutions to thedisease, it hasn’t all been spent on reimbursing farms following breakdowns. Regardless of that fact,there is no proof to substantiate the claim that the next decade will cost another £500 million, nor isthere any proof that culling badgers will reduce this figure at all.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree35

References[1] http://tuberculosis-must-know-stuff.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/history-of-tuberculosis.html.[2] http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/about-bovine-tb/.[3] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/zoonosis.[4] http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/Mycobacterium_Bovis-Science_Research.pdf.[5] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/humans-can-spread-bovine-tb-id18116739-t18.html.[6] http://tinyurl.com/m3qbylx.[7] http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/POSTpb002_Bovine_TB_Disease_Control.pdf.[8] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110203030352/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/tb-control-measures/100915-tb-control-measures-annexa.pdf.[9] http://mrcvs.co.uk/en/news/10020/Bovine-TB-confirmed-in-seal-pup.[10] http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/en/publications/factors-associated-with-herd-restriction-and-derestriction-with-bovine-tuberculosis-in-british-cattle-herds(3e1c8b5b-35f0-4034-94a0-8953fb647798).html.[11] http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article.php?article_id=144.[12] http://tinyurl.com/mxwjj7h.[13] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incidence-of-tuberculosis-tb-in-cattle-ingreat-britain.[14] http://ergodd.zoo.ox.ac.uk/download/reports/Emergence&ControlofBovineTuberculosis.pdf.[15] http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/animal-keepers/testing/.[16] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0043217.[17] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424237/.[18] http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/committee/acm1021milk.pdf.[19] http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/163/12/357.abstract.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree36

[20] http://www.dardni.gov.uk/afbi-literature-review-tb-review-diagnostic-tests-cattle.pdf.[21] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1472-765x.2000.00787.x/full.[22] http://www.bovinetb.info/testing.php.[23] http://farmingforum.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?12220-Tb-lumps.[24] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2785049/.[25] http://www.biomedcentral.com/1746-6148/9/267.[26] http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/documents/prmt_vetadv.pdf.[27] http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/79226/1/Res_Vet_Sci_OK.pdf.[28] http://www.farminguk.com/news/Liver-fluke-increasing-exponentially-as-lambingapproaches_24985.html.[29] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3605902/.[30] http://www.shropshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/Resources/Shropshire%20Wildlife/PDF%20Documents/bTB%20essay%20SWT%20version.pdf.[31] http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/isg/documents/isgresponsetosirdking.pdf.[32] http://www.statslife.org.uk/features/999-badgers-estimating-their-role-in-cattle-tbtransmission.[33] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229570/badger-cull-iep-monitor-controlled-shooting20130307.pdf.[34] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22375-badger-cull--the-science-behind-thegamble.html#.Us67oJqYaUk.[35] http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/isg/report/final_report.pdf.[36] http://www.dardni.gov.uk/afbi-literature-review-tb-review-badger-to-cattletransmission.pdf.[37] http://www.bbk.ac.uk/environment/news/badgerstext.[38] http://phys.org/news/2013-03-cattle-badgers-tb-rarely.html.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree37

[39] http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/2124100/badgers_by_numbers.html.[40] http://www.southwestbusiness.co.uk/news/19112013091805-badgers-across-west-arebeing-culled-in-cattle-free-farms/.[41] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pilot-badger-cull-data-and-results.[42] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270123/DOC211113-21112013160839.pdf.[43] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/badger-cull-piloting-controls-on-bovine-tb.[44] http://www.organicvet.co.uk/VetMan/Bio.htm.[45] http://www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/files/AG-TBYHW-02.pdf.[46] http://www.hindawi.com/journals/vmi/2011/765430/.[47] http://aem.asm.org/content/69/7/4316.full.[48] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1686208/.[49] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1082502/.[50] http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=8665.[51] http://www.vetres.org/articles/vetres/pdf/2005/03/v4054.pdf.[52] http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/documents/tbfacts.pdf.[53] http://www.foodandlife.co.uk/2010/12/bovine-tb-badgered-by-bureaucracy/.[54] http://www.ecifm.rdg.ac.uk/agsup.htm.[55] http://www.aglime.org.uk/downloads/british_survey_of_fertiliser_practise_chris_dawson.pdf.[56] http://www.markpurdey.com/articles_tuberculosis_alert.htm.[57] http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/173/18/452.1.extract.[58] http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/scientists-build-a-clearer-picture-of-the-spread-ofbovine-tuberculosis.[59] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7041/full/nature03548.html.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree38

[60] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/258/25808.htm#note119.[61] http://tinyurl.com/pknttj7.[62] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16946308.[63] http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/12/11/2013/141941/cattle-movements-blamed-for-durhamtb-outbreak.htm.[64] http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article.php?article_id=89.[65] http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/09/01/2014/142747/abolish-six-day-standstill-defraurged.htm.[66] http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/16874/.[67] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvfru/638/638we05.htm.[68] http://www.fieldscience.co.uk/tb_prevention_soil_minerals.html.[69] http://www.foodandlife.co.uk/2010/12/bovine-tb-badgered-bybureaucracy/#sthash.rJ3uVR1k.dpuf.[70] http://www.thecattlesite.com/diseaseinfo/236/selenium-deficiency-in-adult-dairy-cattle/.[71] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3521029/.[72] http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/24/rspb.2010.1953.abstract.[73] http://badgervaccinationwales.com/faq-s.html.[74] http://www.shropshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/Resources/Shropshire%20Wildlife/PDF%20Documents/AHVLA%20vaccinationFAQs.pdf.[75] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69443/pb13601-bovinetb-eradication-programme-110719.pdf.[76] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/258/25808.htm.[77] http://www.tbfreeengland.co.uk/assets/4148.[78] http://www.fuw.org.uk/tl_files/FUW/article_images/PolicyFactsheets/BadgersAndBovineTBApril2011.pdf.[79] https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=16831.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree39

[80] http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Factsheets/pdfs/bovine_tuberculosis.pdf.[81] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/258/258vw06.htm.[82] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvfru/905/905ii.pdf.[83] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200909/pb13922-shooting-guidance-20130517.pdf.[84] http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/science/publications/documents/OutcomeOfExpertsMeetingOnBovineTBAndPerturbation.pdf.[85] http://www.bovinetb.info/docs/bovine-tb-eradication-programme-iaa-badger-vaccinationproject-year-1-report.pdf.[86] http://www.defra.gov.uk/ahvla-en/files/vaccinationFAQs.pdf.[87] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3521029/.[88] http://www.badgergate.org/need-to-know/badgers/is-the-badger-population-out-ofcontrol/.[89] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3521029/.[90] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2953002/.[91] http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/vaccination/cattlevaccination/#references.[92] http://www.brockvaccination.co.uk/our-service/vaccination-programme/.[93] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bovine-tb.[94] http://www.dardni.gov.uk/afbi-literature-review-tb-review-diagnostic-tests-cattle.pdf.[95] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvfru/638/638we05.htm#note13.[96] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvfru/638/638we05.htm.[97] http://www.snufflelodge.org.uk/?page_id=929.[98] http://www.biocensus.co.uk/2013-09-04-11-08-23/blog/entry/of-badgers-birds-and-btbwhy-killing-badgers-won-t-save-our-skylarks.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree40

[99] http://www.influentialpoints.co.uk/Critiques/Badger-culling-and-tuberculosis-(tb).htm.[100] http://www.wildaboutnz.co.nz/2010/12/possums/.[101] http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/possums/page-1.http://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree41

AppendixPerturbationPerturbation infographic from http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/badgers-matterhttp://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree42

Recent updatesSince completing this document new information has been released which further undermines theGovernment’s ‘Bovine TB eradication Policy’; according to Defra a fault within their database hasresulted in all Bovine TB statistics from 2011 to be overestimated. The statistics system has nowbeen closed pending investigation, however it is estimated that current stats are approximately 11%lower than officially stated.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271234/bovinetbstatsnotice-15jan14a.pdfCosts for policing have also been released and so far exceed £3million for Gloucestershire andSomerset. This price is three times the estimated cost and equates to >£1,600 for every badgerculled (for the cost of policing alone). The Welsh Assembly Government vaccination policy costs anaverage of £662/badger, almost a third of the price to just police the culls.http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/01/15/badger-cull-operation-cost-west-mercia-police-466000/It has now been found that the Bovine TB statistics for cattle reactors has been incorrect since atleast 2011. Due to a computer error the database which is used to store and calculate thesestatistics has “resulted in the number of herds not officially TB free due to a bovine TB incident (non-OTF herds) being overstated since September 2011. A number of herds have continued to beincorrectly reported in these statistics as being not officially TB free, when in fact TB restrictions hadbeen lifted during this period. Further investigations are underway to verify the extent and scale ofthe problem, however it can be expected that this data series will be revised significantly downwardsfor 2012 and 2013.” It is estimated that the true number of infected herds may drop by 11.8%.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271234/bovinetbstatsnotice-15jan14a.pdfhttp://www.facebook.com/TbFreeEngland@Mr_TBFree43