Badger research 2017 Chris Mbuff

Factual report on why Badger culls
are not a viable, scientific
solution to the eradication of bovine
Tuberculosis
Chris Mbuff 2017

Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
The other 94.3% possible causes ............................................................................................................ 3
Slurry ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Animal husbandry ............................................................................................................................... 3
Others Hosts ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Supporting a logical science led approach .............................................................................................. 4
Open letter .............................................................................................................................................. 5
BBC Article............................................................................................................................................... 6
Cover letter from ISG report ................................................................................................................... 7
INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC GROUP ON CATTLE TB .............................................................................. 7
References .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 8

Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis) is a slow-growing (16- to 20-hour generation
time) aerobic bacterium and the causative agent of tuberculosis in cattle (known as bovine TB)
Introduction
This small paper is a summary of information gathered to demonstrate, irrefutably, that the current
method of eradication of bTB, by the process of focussing on Badger culls is flawed, not efficacious
and may in fact be prolong unnecessarily the process aims by the Dept’ Agriculture Farming and
Fisheries. The onus being put onto badger culling seems to avoid some fundamental issues such as
farming practices, other animals carrying the pathogen, slurry and the intensity of modern farming
and whether it is fit for purpose.
From whichever position one approaches the desired eradication of bTB, one clear and glaring fact is
evident; the science and methodology used by DEFRA and the impetus behind the Badger cull and
therefore its ensuing cost to the public purse appears fundamentally flawed. Some of the major
possible areas of transmission are not factored into current policy, these are outlines below.
The other 94.3% possible causes
Only 5.7% of all bTB outbreaks have been the direct result of transmission from badgers to cattle.
This equally means that 94.3% of all bTB outbreaks come from alternate sources. Badgers, however,
are still the subject of unrelenting culling campaigns that cannot possibly eradicate bTB if they only
cause 5.7% of all bTB outbreaks. The opposition to the cull believes that 5.7% can be significantly
lowered, if not removed altogether by an effective vaccination strategy and testing of badgers. The
Badger Trust believe that the source of the other 94.3% of outbreaks needs to be the primary focus
of DEFRA’s strategy.
Slurry
Slurry contamination certainly is a variable where greater research and data gathering is required; it
(slurry) can generate aerosols that potentially carry bacteria for considerable distances. Respiratory
transmission to neighbouring farms via slurry aerosols, whilst probably unlikely, cannot currently be
excluded. Studies indicate that inadequate storage of slurry is associated with an increased risk of TB
transmission.
Current data on excretion of M. bovis in bovine faeces is very limited. Early studies, at a time when
substantial numbers of the national herd were infected, indicate that the proportion of heavily
infected cattle excreting M. bovis in faeces was typically 10%, but may have been as high as 80%.
These early studies are not likely to be representative of the current situation in countries with
established TB control programmes (including Northern Ireland).
Animal husbandry
Animal husbandry practices, particularly grazing management, may also be important in
reducing/preventing the exposure of cattle to contaminated pasture and soil.
Studies have demonstrated that M. bovis can remain viable in soil for about 6 months. Cattle tend to
consume soil to offset mineral deficiencies and also use soil for behavioural head rubbing, during
which they may create dust and potentially infectious aerosols.
There is little information on the survival of M. bovis during the ensiling process. The information
currently available indicates silage cannot be excluded as a risk and steps should also be taken to
avoid spreading silage fields with contaminated slurry.

Others Hosts
Spill-over hosts such as other animals in the wild or domestic animals have not been fractured into
anti long term eradication processes.
There is currently little active surveillance in the UK of bovine TB in other mammals, so why has only
the badger being targeted? Whilst the primary host of bovine TB is cattle, the organism has been
isolated from a wide range of species, including deer, pigs, sheep, horses, dogs, cats and rats (usually
referred to as ‘spill-over hosts’).
Cats (estimated populations of well over 1 million feral and 7.5 million domestic pets
www.cats.org.uk/media/facts.asp) and around 60 million rats
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2164999.stm),
Latest data on domestic and companion animals from VLA, the BIG question here is why they do not
consider the species they have identified high prevalence of TB as problems
Basic summary of 2009 data thus far:
Deer = 36% positive (includes farmed, wild and park deer)
Cat = 25% positive
Dog = 27% positive
Pig = 19% positive
Alpaca = 56% positive
Llama = 0%
Sheep = 44% positive
Goat = 0
Ferret (!) = 0
farmed wild boar = 0 NB: two cases this year confirmed for wild boar and TB, both on TB infected
farms
HUMANS have a 1% incidence of TB, skewed to farm workers
The question to be asked: present data and justify on why they do not consider these spp which
actually have high sero-prev than most badger populations.
An increasing trend is for higher occurrences of TB in cats and alpaca (these are live culture
diagnostics so cannot be argued with by the vets etc)
Supporting a logical science led approach
Extract from statement from Dr Dan Forman CBiol.MIBiol.EurProBiol.
Conservation Ecology Research Team
Department of Pure and Applied Ecology
Institute of Environmental Sustainability
Swansea University
In it’s 2009 publication The Deer Initiative declares “A survey published at the same time, of wild
deer density and bTB prevalence in the south west of England, showed that although levels of bTB in
deer are often very low (less than 1 per cent), there was one localised cluster of high deer density
where bTB prevalence exceeded 15%”

Open letter
Below an open letter to concerned parties show how senior, experienced academics and interested
scientists are opposed to the cull for logical and statically verifiable reasons. Highlighted text show
salient statements.
Letter to Guardian/ Observer 13th Oct 2012
Bovine tuberculosis is a serious problem for UK farmers, deserving the highest standard of evidencebased
management. The government's TB-control policy for England includes licensing farmers to
cull badgers. As scientists with expertise in managing wildlife and wildlife diseases, we believe the
complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than
reducing it.
Even if such increases do not materialise, the government predicts only limited benefits, insufficient
to offset the costs for either farmers or taxpayers. Unfortunately, the imminent pilot culls are too
small and too short term to measure the impacts of licensed culling on cattle TB before a wider rollout
of the approach. The necessarily stringent licensing conditions mean that many TB-affected
areas of England will remain ineligible for such culling. We are concerned that badger culling risks
becoming a costly distraction from nationwide TB control.
We recognise the importance of eradicating bovine TB and agree that this will require tackling the
disease in badgers. Unfortunately, culling badgers as planned is very unlikely to contribute to TB
eradication. We therefore urge the government to reconsider its strategy.
Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS
University of Cambridge and president of the Zoological Society of London, and 30 others (see
observer.co.uk/letters) Professor Mike Begon, University of Liverpool ;
Professor Tim Blackburn, Zoological Society of London ;
Professor John Bourne CBE, former Chairman, Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB; Professor William Sutherland,
University of Cambridge; Professor Terry Burke, University of Sheffield; Dr Chris Cheeseman, formerly Food & Environment
Research Agency; Professor Sarah Cleaveland, University of Glasgow;
Professor Tim Clutton Brock FRS, University of Cambridge ; Professor Andrew Dobson, Princeton University; Dr Matthew
Fisher, Imperial College London; Dr Trent Garner, Zoological Society of London;
Professor Stephen Harris, University of Bristol; Professor Daniel Haydon, University of Glasgow;
Professor Peter Hudson FRS, Pennsylvania State University; Professor Kate Jones, University College London;
Professor Matt Keeling, University of Warwick; Professor Richard Kock, Royal Veterinary College;
Professor Lord Krebs Kt FRS, University of Oxford; Dr Karen Laurenson, Frankfurt Zoological Society;
Professor Sir John Lawton CBE FRS, former chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council;
Professor Simon Levin, Princeton University; Professor Georgina Mace FRS, University College London;
Professor Jonna Mazet, University of California, Davis School of Veterinary
Medicine; Professor Lord May OM AC Kt FRS, University of Oxford; Professor Graham Medley, University of Warwick;
Professor E.J. Milner-Gulland, Imperial College London;
Professor Denis Mollison, former Independent Scientific Auditor to the Randomised Badger Culling Trial; Professor Pej
Rohani, University of Michigan; Dr Tony Sainsbury, Zoological Society of London;
Professor Claudio Sillero, University of Oxford; Professor Rosie Woodroffe, Zoological Society of London

BBC Article
The following article from the BBC
Prof Rosie Woodroffe has told BBC News that ministers were creating an "illusion" of success to
justify the policy.
She was speaking ahead of a scientific symposium on controlling cattle TB.
Ministers say their approach is supported by government scientists and leading vets.
When evidence is being cherry-picked and presented in the best possible light it ceases to be
evidence. It is fake science Prof Rosie Woodroffe, ZSL
Prof Woodroffe, a wildlife expert at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) who carried out the
scientific assessment of culling badgers to control Cattle TB on which the current policy is based, said
the government risked losing trust on how it used evidence - not just on its policy on controlling
cattle TB but also on other important scientific issues.
"When evidence is being cherry-picked and presented in the best possible light, it ceases to be
evidence. It is fake science.
"When it comes to (other policy areas) such as climate change and bee pollination, issues that have a
big impact on lives and livelihoods of people, it is important that we can rely on the government to
provide good evidence that stands up to scrutiny."
England has the highest incidence of TB in Europe and that is why we are taking strong action Defra
According to Prof Woodroffe, if the government can revise its targets then by definition the culls will
always be successful [ed ergo]
"Where few badgers were being killed, they lowered the targets; where a lot were killed, they raised
them. This means that there is really no way to tell what reduction in badger numbers was achieved
by these culls. Culling that was consistently ineffective would look like a low badger density and
prompt a reduced target," she said.
Prof Tim Coulson, of Oxford University, who was a member of the Independent Expert Panel (IEP)
that assessed the pilot culls, agrees.
"The IEP developed robust methods for assessing effectiveness. Defra has chosen to ignore these.
My hope is at the end of this there is a proper independent review and those who have deliberately
chosen to ignore the science and pursue an expensive and ineffective agenda on political grounds
are held accountable.
"It is not helping the poor farmers. It is costing the tax payer millions. The science has already been
clear, but science no longer plays a part in the decision process."
But a spokesman for the National Farmers Union (NFU), which is in favour of the culls, said that the
new method for assessing and adjusting targets was justified.
"Daily data collected through the course of the cull will allow Natural England to assess whether the
estimated population was a reasonable reflection of the true population. If there is evidence on the
ground during culling operations that suggests the minimum and maximum numbers have been set
either too low or too high, Natural England can adjust the figures accordingly.(source BBC).

Cover letter from ISG report
Below is the covering letter in 2009 of Report of the Independent Scientific Group on CattleTB (ISG),
to the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Highlighted section to draw
attention that the report does NOT concluded that a Badger cull is the most efficient and prudent
way to reduce and then eradicate bTB from cattle.
INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC GROUP ON CATTLE TB
Chairman: Professor John Bourne CBE MRCVS
Secretary: Mike Summerskill
Area 107, 1A Page Street, London SW1P 4PQ
The Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
18 June 2007
Dear Secretary of State,
FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC GROUP ON
CATTLE TB
I have pleasure in enclosing the final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle
TB (ISG). After nearly a decade’s work, I believe that the ISG has fulfilled its original objective and can now
provide you with a comprehensive picture of TB epidemiology in cattle and badgers. Further research will
doubtless improve the knowledge base, but
I believe that the work described in this Report will allow you to develop future policies based on sound
science.
The ISG’s work – most of which has already been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals – has reached
two key conclusions. First, while badgers are clearly a source of cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and
others’ data indicates that badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.
Indeed, some policies under consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better. Second,
weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence
and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely to be the main source
of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical
spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone.
Our Report provides advice on the need for Defra to develop disease control strategies, based on scientific
findings. Implementation of such strategies will require Defra to institute more effective operational
structures, and the farming and veterinary communities to accept the scientific findings. If this can be
achieved, the ISG is confident that the measures outlined in this Report will greatly improve TB control in
Britain.
The ISG remains grateful to you and your colleagues for your continued support and encouragement to see
our work brought to a successful conclusion.
Yours sincerely,
F J BOURNE

References
(1) Anon, (2017). [online] Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081108133322/http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/i
sg/pdf/final_report.pdf [Accessed 2 Oct. 2017].
The Ecologist. (2017). Dodgy data, bad science, rotten politics: why the badger cull is wrong and
stupid. [online] Available at:
http://www.theecologist.org/campaigning/2987627/dodgy_data_bad_science_rotten_politics_why
_the_badger_cull_is_wrong_and_stupid.html [Accessed 2 Oct. 2017].
Badger Trust - Home. (2017). Badger Trust - Home. [online] Available at:
https://www.badger.org.uk/can-the-cull [Accessed 2 Oct. 2017].
Anon, (2017). [online] Available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/documents/tb-otherspecies.pdf
[Accessed 2 Oct. 2017].
Anon, (2017). [online] Available at: http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/uploads/guides/119.pdf
[Accessed 2 Oct. 2017].
Badgerland.co.uk. (2017). Tuberculosis. [online] Available at:
http://www.badgerland.co.uk/animals/threats/tuberculosis.html [Accessed 2 Oct. 2017].
Badger-watch.co.uk. (2017). The Role of Cattle Slurry in the BTB Story. | Badger Watch and Rescue
Dyfed. [online] Available at: http://www.badger-watch.co.uk/the-role-of-cattle-slurry-in-the-btbstory/
[Accessed 2 Oct. 2017].
Acknowledgements
Cornwall Against the Cull
Cornwall Badger Information
Cornwall Badger Buddies
Devon and Cornwall against the Cull.
The Badger Trust.
Save Me Foundation.
Compiled By Chris Maycock 2017