THE BIG DEBATE: Do we need a badger cull?

Transcription

1 THE BIG DEBATE: Do we need a badger cull? THE DILEMMA The UK government s badger cull programme, which aims to reduce the spread of a deadly cattle disease, has recently been extended from 10 to 21 areas in England in the counties of Devon, Wiltshire, Somerset, Dorset and Cheshire. It is thought as many as 33,000 badgers could be killed. This latest cull scheme began as a trial in Gloucestershire and Somerset in It was controversial at the time, with many people protesting the government s decision, arguing the cull is cruel and inhumane. The government and some farmers argue it is essential to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis (TB), an infectious disease, among cattle. A panel of experts appointed by Defra (Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), the government department responsible for farming, was set up to review the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of the 2013 culls. The panel said the culls were ineffective and inhumane in 2013, with no significant improvement the following year. Despite this, in August 2016, the government announced seven new cull licenses across three new areas (Cornwall, Devon and Herefordshire), and this year the cull has been expanded once again. Is it time to cancel the cull? Or is the government right to do all it can to stop bovine TB?

2 THE opinions Scientific evidence is that a vaccination programme would be far more effective, yet the government insists on carrying out this cruel and barbaric practice contrary to the science. Justin Madders, Labour MP It s depressing that the government is pursuing badger culling over such huge areas when the benefits remain so uncertain. Data published today suggests that, after three years of culling, cattle TB in the first cull zones was still no lower than that in unculled areas. Professor Rosie Woodroffe, Zoological Society of London A protest in the UK against the badger cull Last year nearly 33,000 cattle were slaughtered across Britain because of bovine TB. More than 4,700 herds that had previously been clear of the disease were affected by it. It is an infectious disease for which there is no cure. No one is saying badger culling alone will solve the problem of bovine TB. Just like no one is saying badger vaccination alone will solve the problem. To have any chance of controlling and eradicating it we have to use all available options at the same time. Minette Batters, Deputy President of the National Farmers Union (NFU)

3 THE BIG DEBATE: Level 3 DILEMMA: DO WE NEED A BADGER CULL? Friday 29th September 2017 ALL ABOUT THE BADGER adgers B are small mammals that can grow up to 86cm long from head to tail, weighing as much as 18kg. They live, on average, to the age of 10. DID YOU KNOW? The Royal Society of Biology conducted a poll last year to find out what the UK s favourite mammal is, and the badger got just 2.8% of the vote! Badgers sleep during the day and look for food at night. They feed mostly on worms, and eat at least 200 every single night! Their strong limbs and sharp claws enable them to dig burrows and find their prey underground. Badgers infected with bovine TB usually do not show any sign of infection and can survive for many years. Badgers are social mammals who live together in large underground setts (dens) made up of tunnels and chambers some of these are hundreds of years old.

4 CULL facts & figures Only 5.7% of all bovine TB outbreaks have been the direct result of transmission from badgers to cattle. 5.7% 83% of badgers culled in trials between 2002 and 2005 were tested and found to not have bovine TB, according to The Wildlife Trusts. The cost of cattle slaughtered due to bovine TB in 2016 was 100 million. The cost of killing each badger is estimated to be 4, m There has been no investigation into how effective culls are in controlling bovine TB in cattle. Total badgers shot per year to try to reduce bovine TB Number of badgers killed 83% Proposed number of badgers to be killed 30,000 Between 1998 and 2007, a 50 million trial took place to assess whether badger culling had an impact on bovine TB. More than 11,000 badgers were killed in 20 areas across England The initial trial found that killing badgers disrupted their social groups, leading some of the animals to move away from their habitat and take the disease with them, therefore spreading it further. A maximum of 33,347 and a minimum of 21,797 badgers will be culled this autumn. 20,000 10, min 2017 max

5 the impact of BOVINE TB on uk farms Cattle can catch the deadly bovine TB from other cattle and from badgers, while badgers can catch it from other badgers and from cattle. But the bacteria that causes the illness can also infect and cause bovine TB in deer, goats, pigs, llamas, alpacas, dogs and cats, as well as many other mammals. It is thought that the bacteria is mainly spread out of the infected animal s body in its breath or in discharges from the nose or mouth, but it can also pass from one infected animal to another through skin injuries, or in urine, droppings and sputum (saliva and mucus). In 2009 the Farm Crisis Network conducted a number of interviews with farmers across the UK. They found that dealing with TB causes considerable stress to both farmers and their families. 20% of individuals interviewed admitted that they were either panicked or devastated by the news of a TB outbreak, and a further 50% were upset or worried. The symptoms of the disease take a long time to show even though an animal is infectious. They include coughing, weakness and loss of weight. The disease is incurable. The risk of humans catching TB from cattle and badgers is very, very low. It can be transmitted to people via infected milk. But even if any infected milk were to slip through the testing process, the process of pasteurisation would kill off the bacteria. In the UK, transmission to humans is highly unlikely, but in developing countries, where pasteurisation is not routine, infected milk is a common cause of TB in humans. Any cattle that are found to carry the disease during tests are slaughtered. This means that bovine TB can be devastating financially. According to Defra figures, it is estimated that a bovine TB outbreak on a farm costs, on average, 34,000, with roughly 20,000 of that cost paid by the government and 14,000 by the farmer. PASTEURISATION Named after a 19 th - century French scientist called Louis Pasteur, the process of pasteurisation makes milk safe. It involves heating milk to 71.7 C for at least 15 seconds (and no more than 25 seconds), before quickly cooling it to less than 3 C. The milk is then packaged ready for sale. The bovine TB bacteria under a microscope Milk is highly unlikely to be infected with bovine TB

6 ALTERNATIVES TO A CULL The vaccine One alternative option to a cull is to use vaccines to prevent the spread of the disease although they have no effect in badgers or cattle that are already infected with bovine TB. A vaccine is a substance that stops an animal (or a human!) from catching a disease. After years of refusing to introduce vaccines, the government has now started rolling out a vaccine against bovine TB for badgers. It is called a BCG. However, it is a time-consuming process. Tests on cattle Rather than killing healthy badgers, cattle could be regularly tested for bovine TB, to help prevent infected cows from spreading the disease to healthy ones. Professor Matthew Evans, from Queen Mary University of London, thinks this is the most effective alternative to badger culls: We believe that how frequently cattle are tested and whether or not farms utilise winter housing have the most significant effect on the number of infected cattle... Our modelling provides compelling evidence that investment in increasing the frequency of cattle testing is a far more effective strategy than badger culling. Improved biosecurity Biosecurity is another way of saying the safety, cleanliness and security of the farm. Some studies have shown that bovine TB has spread in the pastures on farmland, as well as around farm buildings. More measures could be taken to prevent the disease being transmitted, such as: testing all new animals before they are brought onto the farm; keeping badgers away from stored cattle feed; and maintaining regular cleaning processes.

7 YES, we need a badger cull NO, A BADGER CULL IS USELESS AND INHUMANE 1. The cost to farming is huge The NFU says that dealing with bovine TB has cost the taxpayer 500 million in England in the last ten years, and it is estimated the cost will rise to 1 billion over the next ten. This cannot go on. 2. The disease causes suffering and slaughter A badger cull is a tough but necessary response to the spread of bovine TB, which is an incurable infection that leads to a horrific illness and death in cattle. 3. It s part of a wider strategy Farmers recognise that a cull isn t the only way of combating bovine TB, but it is an important part of the process. Vaccinations, though important, are time-consuming and there still isn t an approved vaccine for cattle anyway. Until there is, the culls should continue. 1. It s cruel and inhumane Thousands of innocent, healthy badgers are being killed as well as infected ones. For all of them, their deaths are needless. For some, they are slow and painful. 2. It s ineffective There is no scientific evidence that the cull is reducing bovine TB or making cattle any safer. The government is extending the cull just to keep farmers happy in spite of a lack of evidence that it is an effective way of halting the spread of this terrible disease. 3. There are other, better ways Vaccinations are cheaper and far more effective at preventing the spread of bovine TB. Biosecurity and improved cattle testing are also methods that can help contain this disease.

8 Why might a badger cull be an important part of controlling the spread of bovine TB? Why might a cull be unhelpful in preventing the spread of bovine TB? Who do you think is suffering the most as a result of bovine TB? Is the cull worthwhile if it means cattle could be saved? What other measures could farmers take to prevent the spread of bovine TB? Do you think the UK Government should support these trials or stay out of them? Are these alternatives to the cull good enough? Would it be right for a badger to be killed, if it saved the life of lots of cows? Culls are completely random and will kill both healthy and infected badgers. But is this a necessary part of the process of protecting cattle? Should scientists find out more about how many badgers carry bovine TB and how fast they are spreading the disease to cattle before any more culls take place?