The debate around badger culling to help control bovine TB has been reignited following a review of the current strategy in England. The detailed and nuanced analysis in the review has been largely reduced to reports such as ‘farmers [are] more to blame for the disease than the wild animals’ in the national media.
The review was commissioned by Defra in February. It was led by Prof Sir Charles Godfray of Oxford University under the snappy title of ‘Review of the Strategy for Achieving Officially Bovine Tuberculosis Free Status in England by 2038’.
Those who support a badger cull will be heartened that the review finds that ‘the presence of infected badgers does pose a threat to cattle’. ‘Reducing this threat by culling or non-lethal intervention will help to lower the incidence of the disease in cattle’. The report also goes onto to say that, ‘if a decision is made not to cull, and if non-lethal interventions prove less effective, then eliminating the disease could take longer and complete eradication of the disease may be even more difficult’.
However, the report does also conclude that the farming industry could be doing far more to combat the disease. It finds that the ‘controversy and politics which surrounds badger culling has seen the focus being deflected away from what individual farmers can do to protect their herds’. Whilst not quite saying as much, the report suggests that some in agriculture are overly fixated on culling badgers and use the prevalence of the disease in wildlife as a convenient scapegoat for breakdowns in cattle.
According to the report, there is still poor take up of on-farm bio-security measures and trading in high-risk cattle is seriously hampering the control measures. The livestock industry needs to take more ownership of the problem. The main part of the report explores a wide range of interventions;
- Governance – high-level policy making to be retained by Defra, but introduction of a new body to take over the functions currently performed by APHA, Natural England and Local Authorities. Centralising functions will be more efficient, avoid duplication and be easier for the the new body to work with the industry encouraging shared ownership of the problem.
- Surveillance & Diagnostics – a strong argument for moving to a more sensitive test for surveillance in the High Risk Area and Edge Area.
- Vaccination and Genetic Resistance in Cattle – the BCG vaccine available for cattle provides some protection, but vaccinated cattle often test positive for current tuberculin-based tests. The goal should be to move towards DIVA (differentiating infected from vaccinated animals) tests.
- Risk-based Trading – the new Livestock Information Service (LIS) tracing system should be designed from the outset to assist in controlling bTB. This might allow cattle to be given a ‘risk rating’ based on their previous movement history. The report also states there is a strong argument for disincentivising risky trading by reducing compensation paid to reflect trading behaviour. It recommends increasing post-movement testing from high to low risk areas to include the edge area.
- Disease in Wildlife – if the uncertainty about the relative effectiveness of vaccination and culling is not resolved, the review suggests that after four years of culling, government should consider vaccinating badgers within half the cull area and then after a two year pause, resume intensive culling in the other half and monitor the outcome. If vaccination proves comparable with culling, then all areas should adopt it. If not, then culling should continue.
- Biosecurity – there has been a disappointingly low uptake by farmers of biosecurity options. Accreditation scheme measures and supermarket rules should all be brought together as one and co-ordinated by the newly formed body (see earlier). Further exploration into insurance programmes should be carried out; the review envisages a compulsory insurance programme partially supported by Government with premiums and compensation which is designed to incentivise and reward behaviour that reduces the risk of disease.
- British Farming after CAP – future policies should facilitate bTB control. Current incentives, to hold agricultural land for investment has increased the amount of grazing land. The review highlights concern over the introduction of the new Temporary Land Association (TLA) rules and the role of short-distance movement has on the disease. Short-term tenancies are also likely to effect the investment in biosecurity measures.
- Research – this would benefit from the setting up of a forum to ensure that the research provides the best value for money.
The full review can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-strategy-for-achieving-bovine-tuberculosis-free-status-for-england-2018-review?utm_source=b4fa409f-bfd5-4b98-ac1e-bf3e5eee3052&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate