Badger Cull

[Helen]

OK gents, can we attack the argument and NOT the poster please.

As a public forum, I'm sure people would rather read the facts presented to them in a calm way, as opposed to hangbags at dawn.

Cheers

[wildone]

[quote=Helen]OK gents, can we attack the argument and NOT the poster please.

Helen. I am surprised at you. Like youself all of us are not 'gents' . Thank goodness!! Please have the kindness to include us in the conversation even if it means using a non-gender form of address.

Thanks

Wildone

[allerleirauh]

are there studies that the decimating of Badgers really influenced TBC in your country positive ? We tried this with foxes and rabies.. we tried to extinct them, it was nothing but a slaughter..but the only one we nearly extincted was the Badgers , who is no carrier of rabies usually. But even we decimated the foxes that much, it had not really an effect on rabies. As mice are the main problem .The rabies we exctincted , when we developed a vaccine, that we could give wild foxes. TBC is also transmitted by mice.....
SO.. i am not sure if the restrictless killing of Badgers would really have the wanted result....

Gitta

[emcdaid]

A further wider cull as proposed hasn't started yet but 'experimnetal' culls have taken place and something like 30,000 Badgers have been killed to date.

[Helen]

Hi Erin

Any idea where these culls took place, and by whom? And was it seen as "a success"? Thanks.

[hairy]

Originally Posted by Helen

Hi Erin

Any idea where these culls took place, and by whom? And was it seen as "a success"? Thanks.

Hi,




To quote from: http://www.badger.org.uk/tb/reason-1-1.html

"30,000 Badgers have already been killed - the killing of thousands more is not justified

It is estimated that prior to the present culling trial, MAFF (now DEFRA) killed around 30,000 Badgers over a period of 23 years in its efforts to eradicate bovine TB in cattle.

Originally, Badgers were killed through the gassing of Badger setts. However, research showed that not all of the Badgers died quickly when setts were gassed, so this method of culling was stopped. By this time, many thousands of Badgers had been killed in this way and many of these had endured terrible suffering before they died.

In proposing the culling trial, the Krebs Review Team acknowledged that we do not know whether the Badger culling operations previously carried out had any effect on TB in cattle. This was because there were no 'control' areas and no proper scientific evaluation of the culling. This means that 30,000 Badgers have died for nothing, and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been wasted.

How can the killing of even more Badgers be morally justified when the Government has wasted 23 years on pointless and expensive culling operations, instead of looking for real solutions to the TB problem? We believe that it is time for the killing to stop."

This 30,000 figure refers to Badgers killed before the Krebb's trials - interim results to these have recently been published, with full report later this year.

There is stacks of information available on both the Badger Trust website, and the TB section of the DEFRA website. This includes info on the Krebb's trials in which there were ten 'triplets'. each of these triplets comprises three areas of roughly 100 sq km. One area is a ''control', in the second Badgers were killed around bTB infected farms(reactive zone), and in the third as may Badgers as possible were killed (pro-active zone).

I live within triplet F - pro-active zone. Over 1000 Badgers were killed here in the Kreb's trials - nothing like seeing dead Badgers being carried to the DEFRA landrovers to focus one's opinion!

hope this answers your question

Roger

[allerleirauh]

Hello Roger,

I do not know how it is handled in your country therefore i ask...
Do you check all stables and cows if they are tbc-free in UK , at least once a year ?
What does happen if a cow is TBC positive... do you treat it or is it slaughtered?

Gitta

[allerleirauh]

well.. and annother point i see is that... if there are infections in a stable , the germs are also to find in faeces of the cows of course.
They can survive 6 month in faeces and when brought out in the fields , the cows take it with the food and also the Badgers are infected.
But then the Badgers are also only victims.. and a killing of them will not effect anything.

Gitta

[hairy]

Originally Posted by allerleirauh

Hello Roger,

I do not know how it is handled in your country therefore i ask...



Gitta

Do you check all stables and cows if they are tbc-free in UK , at least once a year ?


To my knowledge, stables/cow sheds are never tested.
The frequency of testing for cattle varies according to te prevalence of bTB. Some herds are on annual testing, others longer intervals. Where infection is detacted more frequent tets are applied until all test clear. You can see a map of bTB hotspots at
http://www.svs.gov.uk/tb/Documents/T...AP_ENGLISH.pdf


What does happen if a cow is TBC positive... do you treat it or is it slaughtered?

Positive reactors are slaughtered. Treatment would be possible with anti-biotics, but the cows would remain 'positive'.

There's a lot more detail on the testing regime on the DEFRA website


hope this helps

Roger

[nightshade]

Roger,I spent many an hour shooting rats around cow sheds and byres with an air-rifle,are these ever tested? do they come into the equasion at all?

[Pat]

This might interest you all. I've had bovine tb twice. The first time I had a swelling in my neck ( lymph gland ) it took about 3 weeks before it was diagnosed as btb, as you can imagine I was extremely worried because I thought I would have to be isolated from everyone but the specialist told me it wasn't infectious or contagious, I was on special antibiotics for 2 years and it cleared up. The second time I was having a lot of pain in one of my knees, it got so bad I went to the doc who put me on strong pain killers, I had several visits to the doc because the pain was so bad I couldn't sleep it was really getting me down. In the end he sent me to the hospital for tests and they diagnosed btb in the bone so back on antibiotics for another 2 years, that was 7 years ago now. The specialist told me that a lot of people have had btb and not even know they've had it until they go into hospital for something else a nd they find tb scars. The point I'm making here is I was told I could NOT pass it on to anyone else so how do Badgers pass it on to cattle? The specialist told me I probably got it from unpasturised milk or cheese and it could have lain dormant in my body for years. I just hope I don't get it again

[hairy]

Originally Posted by nightshade

Roger,I spent many an hour shooting rats around cow sheds and byres with an air-rifle,are these ever tested? do they come into the equasion at all?

The following answer to this question is taken from the DEFRA website where you can download a pdf document giving a summary of current scientific knowledge relating to Bovine Tuberculosis.

Note some of the careful wording - for instance in the following snippet towards the end "scientists believe". I would have preferred the word guess! Also I believe (!) that the sample sizes of 'other species' tested are not large enough to give an accurate picture. (My 'belief' based on information including the book 'The Fate of the Badger' by Richard Meyer)

Roger


extract from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/pdf/sciencesum.pdf

M. BOVIS IN WILDLIFE SPECIES OTHER THAN
Badgers

Bovine TB has been diagnosed in five of the six species of wild deer present in Great Britain. One study for Defra showed a prevalence of 4.4 per cent in a sample of 504 Fallow Deer carcases collected from areas in the South West of England, which is on a par with what is found in some Badger populations (Central Science Laboratory Final Report SE3010, 2004). M. bovis has also been found in Roe deer and Muntjac Deer. Population size and geographical range of
these species are expanding in the UK.

Surveys have also shown that M. bovis is found occasionally in other mammals including foxes, rats and Moles, but scientists believe these have a low risk of passing the infection to cattle.

The Government is currently considering what further research and surveillance is needed to assess the risk of M. bovis infection to cattle posed by wild deer.

[Pat]

Just a thought, where do the Badgers catch the tb in the first place? Maybe it's from the unpasturised milk from the cattle

[allerleirauh]

Hello Pat,
bovine TBC is transmitted by the meat, milk, faeces, dirty water and saliva of infected animals.
It is usually good treatable, but in the Eastern European countries were the infection center for TBC is, like in Israel, Kasachstan, Usbekistan, Litauen, Russia and Turkey 14% of people have developed a multiresistance , because of wrong or not sufficient treatmeant.
This is now a not to underestimate danger for other countries, where they immigrate to.

Gitta

[allerleirauh]

Pat.. of course Badgers do not get infected mostly over milk...but cats do and also dogs.. and i think, the Badgers are infected with the faeces of the cows , which are used to fertilize the fields.
The germs come so also into water often , which Badgers drink.
Well.. it circle..

Gitta

[nightshade]

Just as an aside,12 months ago I was taken to hospital with breathing difficulties and was checked for TB as a matter of course, because of a number of eastern european "visitors" in hospital locally
Can humans transmit it?

[allerleirauh]

Yes, nightshade..
The bovine TBC is transmitted also from human to human and also from human back to cows..
It is really a danger. and with the EU alot of infected people come to western countries.
I read that there are discussions to demand a medical attest and x-rays of people from these countries who want to immigrate in Germany.

Gitta

[allerleirauh]

I do not know how it is in UK, but here Tbc and Diphterie vaccinations belong to the basic vaccinations for kids.
BUt the problem is that they have to be repeated every 8 years and many adults do not to that.

Gitta

[Pat]

If it can be transmitted from human to human why was I told by the tb specialist that I couldn't pass it on to anyone. Aren't you getting muddled up with bovine tb and pulmonary tb, they are completely different strains, the pulmonary tb is highly infectious and people with it have to be isolated.

[hairy]

Where do Badgers get TB from?

As bovine TB is a disease of cattle that occurs throughout the world where man has introduced domesticated livestock, it would perhaps be reasonable to think that the answer to your question is cows!

As usual, there's an overkill of information on the www!
I found the following little extract from the University of Wisconsin - Department of Animal Health and Biomedical Sciences
via the Michigan state government 'Emerging Diseases Issues' site

Don't forget that there are different forms of TB. Whilst we humans can get the bovine type, the vast majority get the human form - I don't think it's possible to tell the type without some clever lab work, so historical data is to say the least 'cloudy'.

TB's Assault on Humanity

TB has had many aliases throughout history: The ancient Greeks called it phthisis (to waste). The swollen glands of the neck were called scrofula. It was called The Kings Evil in medieval times because newly crowned kings of England and France were believed to have powers to heal TB with their touch. TB of the skin was known as lupus vulgaris. TB of the bone as Potts disease with characteristic vertebral fusion and deformity of the spine. The most familiar term for TB, at least to our grandparents and great-grandparents was consumption, which means to consume or wear away. Whatever mask it wore, TB was responsible for 20% of deaths in London in the 1600s, over 30% of deaths in Paris in the 1800s and today is a global emergency according to the world health organization.

M.bovis had been causing TB in the animal kingdom long before invading humanity. However, after the domestication of cattle between 8000-4000 BC, there is evidence of human infection by M.bovis likely through milk ingestion. This coincides with archeological evidence of spinal TB (Potts disease) 5000-1000 BC. M.bovis was the likely pathogen in human TB until ~1000 BC. After 1000 BC, widespread pulmonary TB emerged. In fact, M.tuberculosis probably is an evolved, specialized form of M.bovis developed among milk-drinking Indo-Europeans who then spread the disease during their migration into western Europe and Eurasia. By the 1st millennium BC, M.tb causing pulmonary TB had spread throughout the known world. Earliest tangible record of pulmonary TB was between 668-626 BC. The classic TB signs--cough, expectoration, hemoptysis, wasting of the body, were well recognized. The earliest written evidence of pulmonary TB was from the library of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal (668-626 BC):

cheers all

Roger

[allerleirauh]

The bovine Tuberculosis is transmitted also from human to human, like all kinds of tuberculosis.
BUT in good hygienic situation the human to human infection is not that often as in slums for example. But in the moment someone has a " open " TBC it is highly dangerous for all.


Gitta

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by cornwallbadgers

Note some of the careful wording - for instance in the following snippet towards the end "scientists believe". I would have preferred the word guess! Also I believe (!) that the sample sizes of 'other species' tested are not large enough to give an accurate picture. (My 'belief' based on information including the book 'The Fate of the Badger' by Richard Meyer)

This sort of comment really annoys me as it shows such a lack of respect for, and knowledge of, the scientific method. In science it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible to prove anything, it is easier to disprove, hence the theory of evolution is a theory (or if cornwallbadgers would prefer, a belief, or even a guess), as is the theory of relativity, both as yet not fully proven, although believed to be true. So there we have Darwin & Einstein, two of the worlds greatest guessers.

Everything published in reputable scientific journals is extensively peer-reviewed before it is published, this is a rigorous process that involves other scientists in the same field checking facts, statistics & results, therefore it is very rare for anything false (or, more importantly in this context, unfounded) to end up in journals.

One is reminded of a certain high profile scientific experiment not long ago, which was derided by conservationists as being biased because it was funded by the government, had protesters ripping up fields to stop it, and even the launch of the results disrupted. The irony being the results were exactly what the conservationists would have wanted & triggered Monsanto withdrawing from the UK market. Of course this is all belief as, although this was the biggest experiment of its kind in the world, involved the input of many scientists & ecologists in 100's of fields across the UK, there is still room for a little bit of doubt-that's science.

Its quite often heard on the radio some seemingly intelligent reporter pushing a scientist for an absolute yes or know on a subject & being told they cannot be 100% positive. This has led to some medical scares over the years, bird flu & MMR spring to mind. But it is hard to be 100% positive, MMR in all probability doesn't cause autism, but a small amount of people who have been administered MMR (we're talking decimal points of a percentage here) have developed it, therefore until its proved in these people that there was another cause (and there are autistic people out there who never had an MMR jab) we cannot be 100% sure that MMR doesn't cause autism in some people, we can believe it to be the case though.

Apologies for the long post on a subject that is close to my heart, and I haven't even touched on Chaos theory, the Uncertainty Principle, or Schrodingers famous cat.

[Imaginos]

Oh, and I didn't ask how Richard Meyer's information isn't belief as well?

[hairy]

Thanks to Imaginos for giving me the opportunity to try and clarify my earlier posting that "really annoys me as it shows such a lack of respect for, and knowledge of, the scientific method................Everything published in reputable scientific journals is extensively peer-reviewed before it is published,"

I would agree! BUT what proportion of research is published in this way? I was referring and quoting from a specific document published by DEFRA - this states on the first page ".........the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has prepared this report. It is not a peer-reviewed paper.............."

I'm sorry I don't have the time to transpose the text here, but in his book 'The Fate of the Badger' Richard Meyer gives an explanation of what scientists consider to be the required sample sizes to detect/quantify diseases in a wildlife population. He went on to criticise 'scientific knowledge' at that time as being based on inadequate numbers of animals examined.

Subsequently I was pleased at a DEFRA announcment that further research into the prevalene of bTB in wildlife species other than Badgers was to take place. Concerned that adequate sampling techniques would be employed I enquired as to the proposed sample sizes. DEFRA's response was that this would depend on what carcase were provided to them by landowners & the public!

So to my mind the sampling would again prove inadequate.


I'm not an expert, just a concerned member of the public who has been trying to keep abreast of one realitively small but complex issue - Badgers and bovine TB.

It is not my intention to mislead or annoy, but rather to try and share what information I've come across and to learn from others through forums such as this - what a good discussion there is here!

Finally, I really don't want to enter discussion here about 'other issues' that would be both totally outside my knowledge and way off-topic for this thread - so sorry I'm not getting into a debate about Darwin or Monsanto.

best regards to all on this forum

Roger

[Imaginos]

Intrigued by cornwallbadger's reply I found the reference concerned-a report for DEFRA by the CSL:The risk to cattle from wildlife species other than Badgers in areas of high herd breakdown risk. Very interesting reading it is too, I have include a link at the bottom of the page.

The following is a quote:
"Sample sizes varied widely between species and consequently so did confidence limits associated with prevalence estimates. For example small sample sizes for Polecat, Common Shrew,