Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Badger Culling

What do people think about the introduction of badger culling in areas with high badger populations/incidences of TB in cows?

Do you think the cull should be introduced or not?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

JulietteH

I actually did my dissertation on this.....

The recent Random Badger Culling Trial (following the krebs report) has shown that culling in areas where there has been incidences of TB (or reactive culling) actually INCREASES the TB incidence. This is because it messes with the badgers territories, badgers will travel further thus spreading the disease further.

Until a vaccine can be found and applied in conjunction with isolated culling, I can assure you culling will not be part of the control policy for the UK. I could write you an essay for this qu! If anyone is feeling really geeky they are welcome to read my paper

Reply 2

Joe87

lessthanthree

really? the quote from krebs I got was that badgers posed a significant risk?

If im reading it right JulietteH suggests that culling increases this risk further. Although personally I would like to read the evidence for myself before accepting this. Discounting that evidence I am all for badger culling.

Reply 3

JulietteH

Yep badgers do spread the disease, and so are a risk.
but culling them in a "reactive manner" caused the incidence in cattle to increase; not a lot is known about badgers spacial organisation but it is suspected that this is the reason for the increase.

I can assure you I have read all the evidence published to date! The RBCT was only recently completed so they are still trying to figure it out. Although culling was successful in Ireland amoungst other countries, it was not a success here.

If you look on the DEFRA website it gives quite a good summary.

Reply 4

JulietteH

aha you have been researching! Initial results show:
• 25% increase in the risk of bTB in cattle in ‘reactive’ areas.
• 19% decrease in the risk of bTB in cattle within the ‘proactive’ culled areas, BUT
• 29% increase in the risk or bTB in cattle in areas within the 2km areas surrounding the ‘proactive’ culled areas (Macdonald et al. 2006).

Reply 5

JulietteH

Nope results may have been affected by human intervention, they may have even made the case for badgers even worse. It really annoys me when people mess with things they clearly dont understand.

Interestingly Deer also spread bTB, you dont hear much about that tho?

Reply 6

ch0c0h01ic

I remember reading in the papers a while back that ALF, PETA and such like had been/trying to sabotage the badger trials by reintroducing badgers to culled areas. But its probably just a Daily Mail conspiracy...

As far as i know deer aren't protected, unlike badgers, so if the herdsman/gamekeeper suspects that a few are carrying, he can have them culled legally and discreetly.

The public is ignorant about how much of a danger bTB is to cattle farming. They just don't like the animal rights people putting culled badger pictures everywhere. Its the same as in Darfur, people see on the telly people being raped and killed by the janjaweed, they don't like it, but at the same time they won't do anything about it, it'll inconvenience them.

Reply 7

)(--becca--)(

Whats the difference between reactive and proactive culling?

Reply 8

)(--becca--)(

Oh no its OK, just found in on the DEFA website. But I don't understand the need to catch badgers in cages?

Reply 9

Elizabeth :-)

I am really not sure about this. On the one hand I support farmers and appreciate that bTB can cause huge economic losses, but on the other i am v keen on natural history and don't like the idea of badgers being culled. there is all sorts of conflicting information, i really don't know what to believe however as many studies have found that culling badgers increase rates of bTB we should look at other possible vectors. having said that if a farmer or anyone finds a badger suffering from TB they should be allowed to shoot it for the badgers welfare as well as the cattle. Perhaps other factors are involved such as increased stocking density, a stressful environment and the huge demands put on dairy cattle contributing to a poorer immune system and therefore more chance of disease. These are only my thoughts, not definite evidence/facts.

Reply 10

holmsie80

Voles have very high bTB rates too...altho they aren't likely to come into contact with cows or badgers all that much :biggrin:

I did my dissertation on this too, I looked at all the stuff mentioned as well as the factors that predispose badgers to TB and the effect it has on things like body condition. Its a very interesting problem I think! I read in one paper that it costs the UK £75 million per year!!! :eek:

Reply 11

leggielass

Hi there, culing in spot areas increases TB, as juliette says. A national cull so that there were no badges would obviously decrease the amount of TB but I personally am against this.

From our uni notes- 51% of badgers are killed by the honed skills of the British motorist.

If farmers tidied up their farms and kept grain and fodder enclosed and clean so that vermin couldn't get in there would be less TB spread from wildlife.

Deer are a far greater problem than badgers where i'm from and have been proven in research at Massey that they carrt Bovine TB of the same spoilgotype as co-grazed cattle. But although they carry it, who's to say its not the cows that give the Tb to the deer and badgers- this would be more sensible as it is BOVINE TB.

This is a clever, well evolved, self-perpetuating disease- you have to marvel at it! but its also why it's hard to eradicate.

Reply 12

)(--becca--)(

so are you against culling Leggielass?

Its an interesting idea that the cows could be giving it to the badgers and not the otherway round... I never thought of that.

Reply 13

eurasianfeline

)(--becca--)(

What do people think about the introduction of badger culling in areas with high badger populations/incidences of TB in cows?

Do you think the cull should be introduced or not?

That was like almost 1/2 my essay on TB last Oct. (I got very bored with the essay)

It depends on what culling. Proactive culling seems to work alright, reactive culling doesn't. But it messes up the badger distribution which isn't exactly great when the last thing you want is carrier badgers running all over the place and extending their territories.

I'm still all for vaccination. DNA vacc trials seem to be quite promising, and subunit vaccines with the right adjuvents seem alright without compromising the Tuberculin test. And I'm all for Marker Vaccine, although this country's and EU's trade laws make it a bit difficult for Markers Vaccines to be approved for the market. But I still thing vaccination is the way to go.

Reply 14

eurasianfeline

lessthanthree

animal rights people always make it worse.

couldn't agree more.

Reply 15

Oren

Vaccination? Are you joking? you seriously think that vaccination will work? Not only would you have to vaccinate EVERY badger, a hugely costly business, lets not forget you have to catch them (predominantly at night/evening, and they are vicious buggers) and then vaccinate them and re-release them and then catch the next few, even one sett would take a few nights work and the cost on the government would be astronomical, as well as the time consuming nature and basic futility, lets not forget that you'd have to re-vaccinate every year for all of the cubs/younglings, in which you'd also have to catch every other badger to make sure u'd already vaccinated it!

Vaccination will not work, either you put better protection around the cows or you kill the vermin!! It seems a pretty simple arguement to me, I would back the farmers to the hilt, altho I would also have government enforced profit margins for farms to make them more worthwhile to own If I was anywhere near powerful enough and make Green Belts actually Green rather than future housing developments, as you can tell I am a good old fashioned tory :smile:

oh and "Go Fox hunting!" (yes I am aware this will wind people up :P)

Reply 16

leggielass

)(--becca--)(

so are you against culling Leggielass?

Its an interesting idea that the cows could be giving it to the badgers and not the otherway round... I never thought of that.

At the moment, yes. I think it would be wrong of us to do it on a huge scale, which is the only way it would be of benefit.

But its important that as a nation we maintain high abbatoir standards to pick up any reactors. ALthough people used to eat TB cattle during the war- they were known as 'Graped Carcasses' because of the way the enlarged lymph nodes hung in the carcasses.

Reply 17

)(--becca--)(

Theres new evidence now though. Apparently the badger cull in Ireland has had no effect on TB incidences in cows. In Farmers Weekly it said 0.4% of Irelands cattle population were slaughtered in 2006 with the cull, whilst it was only 0.2% without the cull. That kind of puts a fly in the ointment. I wonder why Ireland has a bigger problem with TB - maybe because they don't do premovement testing?

In farmers weekly all the Irish government could say was that TB had always been a bigger problem in Ireland than England - but why?

Reply 18

doolie_xx

Because St. Patrick drove all the snakes out... :p:

Did the cull take into account Ireland and Northern Ireland? This is kinda off the point but I would find it interesting seeing as the two are under separate government rule. It would seem silly not to have enforced it in both countries but if they hadn't it might be interesting to compare the two of them before and after the cull if it was only carried out in Ireland, being the same land mass and all that. We do practice premovement testing in Northern Ireland...I think but I'm not sure about Ireland.