Opinions on badgers for thesis

NewStart!

Hi everyone,

I am a final year Environmental Science student that is carrying out a research project on the opinions and thoughts, either negative or positive of farmers in a non-trial area on Badgers and Tuberculosis links.

Thoughts about how in your opinion TB is spread and what are the links between badgers and TB would be greatly appreciated.

Any thoughts on how you think we could limit the spread from cattle to badgers or vice versa would be great.

I was part of the vaccination trial team during my summer work placement and had alot of dealings with farmers in a trial area and thus I am researching the differences in opinions between a non-trial and trial area.

From this thread I was hoping to gather quotes from farmers and use them in my project, of course no names or details would be asked for or taken or included in the project.

Thanks a million.


[mod]This survey has been approved by the moderators. Please keep comments helpful and respectful.[/mod]

freedominacup

NewStart! wrote: »

Hi everyone,
Hope this okay to post here but I am looking for people's opinions on badgers either negative or positive for my thesis research. It would be great if people could reply.
Thanks a million

Better the badger you know than the one you don't. If you have badgers on your land and no tb problems leave them alone as they're more than likely disease free. If you shift them you have no way of knowing what type of clan might move in.

AP2014

NewStart! wrote: »

Hi everyone,
Hope this okay to post here but I am looking for people's opinions on badgers either negative or positive for my thesis research. It would be great if people could reply.
Thanks a million

I have a large badger sett on my farm for last 3 years. No problems with them and have had no TB and neither has any of my neighbours. Only minor problem is they scratch the ground abit.

djmc

freedominacup wrote: »

Better the badger you know than the one you don't. If you have badgers on your land and no tb problems leave them alone as they're more than likely disease free. If you shift them you have no way of knowing what type of clan might move in.

Would agree with that but if a set of badgers do have tb they will spread it to cattle.
Higher drinking troughs can help so badgers can't use them as baths.
A department man told me before that something like 60 per cent of badgers they were culling tested positive for tb
Of coarse they only cull in areas with high cattle tb problems so it wouldn't be true of entire population.
I have no problem with badger's and think the culling should be left government department
I wouldn't like to see things go the UK route either where animal rights activists push their own agenda which would lead to more tb in cattle and cost farmers millions.

MayoSalmon

Neighbour of mine whole herd went down the other day.

They wouldn't be popular around these parts

Capercaillie

Vaccination of badgers is the way to go, if they can develop an effective vaccine.

greysides

TTT.

ganmo

Passed one of the way home from the shed...sheep here so other than wrecking fences no issue

westernrustler

I have badgers. I was locked up with tb for a year but I'm clear now. I allowed the dept to trap and shoot a few years back.
I see them as part of nature. They were on my land before me and they will be there after me.
I was delighted to see a new sett a few weeks back. I would not voluntarily allow trapping or shooting again , my attitude has changed.
If we have to live with a certain level of bovine TB, then that's the price we should be prepared to pay.

leoch

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Neighbour of mine whole herd went down the other day.

They wouldn't be popular around these parts

Wat part mayo u in

Buford T. Justice XIX

NewStart! wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I am a final year Environmental Science student that is carrying out a research project on the opinions and thoughts, either negative or positive of farmers in a non-trial area on Badgers and Tuberculosis links.

Thoughts about how in your opinion TB is spread and what are the links between badgers and TB would be greatly appreciated.

Any thoughts on how you think we could limit the spread from cattle to badgers or vice versa would be great.

I was part of the vaccination trial team during my summer work placement and had alot of dealings with farmers in a trial area and thus I am researching the differences in opinions between a non-trial and trial area.

From this thread I was hoping to gather quotes from farmers and use them in my project, of course no names or details would be asked for or taken or included in the project.

Thanks a million.


[mod]This survey has been approved by the moderators. Please keep comments helpful and respectful.[/mod]

I think the East Offaly badger work pretty much established the link between badger presence an TB in cattle. To control TB in cattle populations, there must be control of animals that transmit the disease to the cattle.

The two biggest reservoirs in wildlife currently are badgers and deer. Luckily, we have no deer but have a large badger population on the farm atm. As westernrustler said, they were here before me and possibly will be here after me.

I am contiguous to a breakdown currently, badger related. I have Dept inspectors in each day taking out a population described as Ibiza-like on the north of the farm. The other 2 setts in the middle and south of the farm are unpopulated right now and i am concerned that some of the infected badgers will move in and lead to a breakdown.

If it comes to a choice between farming and badgers, then byebye badgers.

I don't really get the love of people for badgers. Yes they are 'cute' and an important part of the ecosystem but TB is transmissable to humans which is why the desire is for elimination of TB from animals either by vaccine(extremely difficult to get anywhere near 'herd immunity') or elimination is still an important objective. I am only one generation separated from family in a sanatorium and i wouldn't like it to return.

MayoSalmon

leoch wrote: »

Wat part mayo u in

East Mayo

whisky_galore

Have an agricultural book from the 1930s, said that they were close to formulating a tb vaccine back then. What happened?

westernrustler

The risk is very low

According to these lads anyway from the wikipedia page

Torgerson, PR; Torgerson, DJ (2010). "Public health and bovine tuberculosis: what's all the fuss about?". Trends in Microbiology 18 (2): 67–72. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2009.11.002. PMID 19944609

Badgers are a protected species under the Wildlife Act. Rightly so. A bit of Bovine TB provides an income for a vast industry of vets ,lab techs, epidemiologists, dept officers and the like. It does not come down to a choice between farming and badgers, even the Dept only want to lower the population density of badgers until a natural fall in the incidence of TB in badgers occurs , they don't want to clear areas at all.
At least thats what I was told four years ago after asking for the scientific justification for their policy.
The reality is that eradication is impossible given modern environmental thinking and that the policy whether stated or not is just to reduce it steadily and keep a lid on it.

Buford T. Justice XIX

westernrustler wrote: »

The risk is very low

According to these lads anyway from the wikipedia page

Torgerson, PR; Torgerson, DJ (2010). "Public health and bovine tuberculosis: what's all the fuss about?". Trends in Microbiology 18 (2): 67–72. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2009.11.002. PMID 19944609

Badgers are a protected species under the Wildlife Act. Rightly so. A bit of Bovine TB provides an income for a vast industry of vets ,lab techs, epidemiologists, dept officers and the like. It does not come down to a choice between farming and badgers, even the Dept only want to lower the population density of badgers until a natural fall in the incidence of TB in badgers occurs , they don't want to clear areas at all.
At least thats what I was told four years ago after asking for the scientific justification for their policy.
The reality is that eradication is impossible given modern environmental thinking and that the policy whether stated or not is just to reduce it steadily and keep a lid on it.

The risk of what is low?

As to job protection, i'm sure they could be gainfully employed doing something else, if the disease is eliminated.

On the possibility of eradication, vaccination is the holy grail but that doesn't mean that, like smallpox, it cannot be eliminated or at least signifigantly reduced. Just as the baseline TB figures in cattle is at an all time low and heading lower, despite experts saying 20 years ago that a figure much higher than the current baseline would never be achieved.

greysides

This is a subject you don't discuss with certain people. There's no point discussing this with someone whose already made up their minds, so I've friends I just avoid the topic with.

Badgers are not cute and cuddly. They are predatory animals, up-turning hedgehogs to eat them alive from underneath, raiding nests for eggs and fledglings as well as eating worms and snails. That's who they are, as nature has them. I see them as part of a balanced eco-system and would be sorry not to have them in the countryside.

I see two patterns of TB. The first is sporadic, the bought-in one, possibly with a little lateral spread but largely isolated cases. It is generally easily controlled.

The second is an area problem. Farms in that area going down and coming clear at random. The area can be largely good or largely bad at any particular time but farmers is that area have a sword hanging over their heads. So what might cause one area to be hazardous and the area beside it to be largely ok? To me, it's wildlife, unfortunately, and largely badgers rather than deer.

You won't sort out that area problem if your hands are tied such that only the black-and-white animals that sleep above the soil are tested. You are only testing a proportion of the susceptible population, which is ridiculous.

Whatever challenges are there to the control (not 'eradication', yet) of TB, a scientific approach will yield better results than an emotive one. The eventual aim would be to have healthy black-and-white populations both above and below ground.

Badgers are a very successful host species for TB. They survive long enough with it to spread it. But it is a nasty disease for them. A pet animal would not be expected to tolerate such a death process. The inability to act, or difficulty getting permission, to clear the unhealthy members of the population condemns many badgers to slow, painful, drawn-out deaths. Not a humane action from those who believe they are acting humanely.

westernrustler

" In a 2010 opinion piece in Trends in Microbiology, Paul and David Torgerson argued that bovine tuberculosis is a negligible public health problem in the UK, providing milk is pasteurized. Bovine TB is very rarely spread by aerosol from cattle to humans. Therefore, the bovine tuberculosis control programme in the UK in its present form is a misallocation of resources and provides no benefit to society. Indeed, there is even very little evidence of a positive cost benefit to the livestock industry, as few studies have been undertaken on the direct costs of bovine TB to animal production. Milk pasteurisation was the single public health intervention that prevented the transmission of bovine TB to humans, and there is no justification for the present test and cull policy in the UK."

So is it possible that those cuddly badgers in their cosy little setts are being culled needlessly.
If the argument is a badger welfare one , not a bovine or human welfare one , then frame it in those terms. Provide more habitat for badgers, treat them like farmland birds in Glas , and vaccinate them.

djmc

greysides wrote: »

This is a subject you don't discuss with certain people. There's no point discussing this with someone whose already made up their minds, so I've friends I just avoid the topic with.

Badgers are not cute and cuddly. They are predatory animals, up-turning hedgehogs to eat them alive from underneath, raiding nests for eggs and fledglings as well as eating worms and snails. That's who they are, as nature has them. I see them as part of a balanced eco-system and would be sorry not to have them in the countryside.

I see two patterns of TB. The first is sporadic, the bought-in one, possibly with a little lateral spread but largely isolated cases. It is generally easily controlled.

The second is an area problem. Farms in that area going down and coming clear at random. The area can be largely good or largely bad at any particular time but farmers is that area have a sword hanging over their heads. So what might cause one area to be hazardous and the area beside it to be largely ok? To me, it's wildlife, unfortunately, and largely badgers rather than deer.

You won't sort out that area problem if your hands are tied such that only the black-and-white animals that sleep above the soil are tested. You are only testing a proportion of the susceptible population, which is ridiculous.

Whatever challenges are there to the control (not 'eradication', yet) of TB, a scientific approach will yield better results than an emotive one. The eventual aim would be to have healthy black-and-white populations both above and below ground.

Badgers are a very successful host species for TB. They survive long enough with it to spread it. But it is a nasty disease for them. A pet animal would not be expected to tolerate such a death process. The inability to act, or difficulty getting permission, to clear the unhealthy members of the population condemns many badgers to slow, painful, drawn-out deaths. Not a humane action from those who believe they are acting humanely.

Well said you have it in a nutshell there
I saw some wildlife programme lately that the presenter said farmers were wrong and misguided in their believe that badgers spread tb
Ironically I found the opposed to be true
Badger's are the main cause of cattle getting tb.
I have spoken to many farmers over the years that have had repeated tb outbreaks and depopulation with closed cattle herds and only when the badgers were culled did the outbreaks stop.
It is also true that nature is a lot crueller than any gun or bullet.
Any animal without human intervention can take days or weeks to die often unable to move without food or water in warm weather
In winter the elements or predetors would finish them off quicker.
It is an emotional topic but i thint farmers are very close to nature anyway and while respecting it realises that they are part of it and some animal's need to be killed for the greater good whatever if its a dog after sheep a mink or a badger if its causing problems the fairest thing to do is kill it.
There are other people who believe no animal should ever be killed even if that animal is causing illnesses suffering and death to other animals.

Buford T. Justice XIX

westernrustler wrote: »

" In a 2010 opinion piece in Trends in Microbiology, Paul and David Torgerson argued that bovine tuberculosis is a negligible public health problem in the UK, providing milk is pasteurized. Bovine TB is very rarely spread by aerosol from cattle to humans. Therefore, the bovine tuberculosis control programme in the UK in its present form is a misallocation of resources and provides no benefit to society. Indeed, there is even very little evidence of a positive cost benefit to the livestock industry, as few studies have been undertaken on the direct costs of bovine TB to animal production. Milk pasteurisation was the single public health intervention that prevented the transmission of bovine TB to humans, and there is no justification for the present test and cull policy in the UK."

So is it possible that those cuddly badgers in their cosy little setts are being culled needlessly.
If the argument is a badger welfare one , not a bovine or human welfare one , then frame it in those terms. Provide more habitat for badgers, treat them like farmland birds in Glas , and vaccinate them.

Vaccinate them with what exactly though?

Afaik there is neither an effective vaccine or a way to vaccinate the badgers that is either effective or practical to administer.

Capercaillie

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Vaccinate them with what exactly though?

Afaik there is neither an effective vaccine or a way to vaccinate the badgers that is either effective or practical to administer.

BCG vaccine. Not 100% effective though. Broad spectrum of immunity in different animals, some animals have protective immunity while other have partial or no immunity. If enough of badger population was vaccinated it would reduce the spread of TB. They are trialing vaccination of Badgers in Ireland, not too sure where though. An oral vaccine would allow easy vaccination similar to the successful vaccination program of foxes against rabies.

Other solution would be a total extermination of badgers, which would reduce the wildlife reservoir since deer I believe do not spread it as much as badgers. Even in a wildlife hostile Country like Ireland this might he a step too far.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Capercaillie wrote: »

BCG vaccine. Not 100% effective though. Broad spectrum of immunity in different animals, some animals have protective immunity while other have partial or no immunity. If enough of badger population was vaccinated it would reduce the spread of TB. They are trialing vaccination of Badgers in Ireland, not too sure where though. An oral vaccine would allow easy vaccination similar to the successful vaccination program of foxes against rabies.

Other solution would be a total extermination of badgers, which would reduce the wildlife reservoir since deer I believe do not spread it as much as badgers. Even in a wildlife hostile Country like Ireland this might he a step too far.

Is it able to be administered fairly easily and does it give herd immunity?

I have doubts on both, tbh.

blue5000

Why can't we vaccinate cattle against TB? Surely all the different strains of TB have been identified by now.

Greengrass1

freedominacup wrote: »

Better the badger you know than the one you don't. If you have badgers on your land and no tb problems leave them alone as they're more than likely disease free. If you shift them you have no way of knowing what type of clan might move in.

while I agree and was always if that opinion about 5 farmers went down last summer and autumn bounding me.
niw these farms would always have traditionally had badger culling going on while we never did because we were always clean
the Dept came into us looking to trap and we ley them because our badgers were traveling a fair distance so they could get tb.

Now we have a new set though so fingers crossed

Capercaillie

blue5000 wrote: »

Why can't we vaccinate cattle against TB? Surely all the different strains of TB have been identified by now.

Interfers with TB skin test. Can't separate vaccinated animals from actual Tb infected animals.

Capercaillie

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Is it able to be administered fairly easily and does it give herd immunity?

I have doubts on both, tbh.

At present not administered easily. Have to trap badger and inject. Immunity is variable.

bonaparte2

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30820579

Two sides to the argument I suppose

greysides

westernrustler wrote: »

" In a 2010 opinion piece in Trends in Microbiology, Paul and David Torgerson argued that ......there is no justification for the present test and cull policy in the UK."

Here's another that often slips by. For us to export cattle and cattle products there is a certification needed. The annual TB test is part of this certification.

Having TB in the country and not testing would be enough to deny us access to several markets. Our competitors would use it as a political football. Just as Foot and Mouth Disease would be used.

greysides

bonaparte2 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30820579

Two sides to the argument I suppose

From the article above:

Factors such as bigger herds and keeping cattle inside for winter could explain the rise in TB in recent decades, say UK scientists.

What I have noticed is that most break-downs occur from mid-summer on and most farms affected at/after housing will come clear during housing.

That doesn't tally with the quote above. It tallies with the exposure being outside.

ganmo

greysides wrote: »

From the article above:



What I have noticed is that most break-downs occur from mid-summer on and most farms affected at/after housing will come clear during housing.

That doesn't tally with the quote above. It tallies with the exposure being outside.

the problem that that article is highlighting is that tb spreads from cow to bullock etc, one infected animal going into the shed could have 20/30 coming out

waalaa

A lad I know farms in an area where TB breakdowns are not uncommon, afaik he ran a closed herd, had raised drinking troughs and had been TB free for numerous years. The department wanted to snare badgers on his farm, around 10 were caught over a couple of weeks, all were free from TB. Next test they had a load of reactors, and over 2 years of tests cleared out about 90% of the cattle before they got clear.

The thinking was the healthy badgers kept the sick ones out and with the healthy badgers gone the sick moved into the setts and infected the cattle. Any badger on the farm now is left alone and so far all TB tests have been clear since.

mf240

What would we do with all the vets if we got rid of tb. Sure its their bread and butter not to mention all the civil servants involved in the "fight " against this seemingly insurmountable disease.

greysides

mf240 wrote: »

What would we do with all the vets if we got rid of tb. Sure its their bread and butter not to mention all the civil servants involved in the "fight " against this seemingly insurmountable disease.

Interesting question but heading off-topic.

mf240

Im not trying to stir it and will open a new thread if requested.

But is there a genuine will among those involed to eradicate tb. A serious question.

Greysides i appreciate your a vet yourself and this may be close to the bone but id be interested in peoples opinions.

Capercaillie

mf240 wrote: »

Im not trying to stir it and will open a new thread if requested.

But is there a genuine will among those involed to eradicate tb. A serious question.

Greysides i appreciate your a vet yourself and this may be close to the bone but id be interested in peoples opinions.

No TB testing would mean no vets for calls (hardly any).

greysides

mf240 wrote: »

Im not trying to stir it and will open a new thread if requested.

But is there a genuine will among those involed to eradicate tb. A serious question.

Greysides i appreciate your a vet yourself and this may be close to the bone but id be interested in peoples opinions.

With my mod hat on....

Please open another thread as this thread is seeking opinions on a different question.

Thoughts about how in your opinion TB is spread and what are the links between badgers and TB would be greatly appreciated.

Any thoughts on how you think we could limit the spread from cattle to badgers or vice versa would be great.

yellow50HX

Haven't had tb here but have badgers, only issue we have had was a couple of dood ol boys coming down to do some baiting. Managed to spot the f**kers one Sunday morning and rang the cops. They were sprouting some ****e about being part of the dept cull.

Cops put the tun on them and we haven't had them back.

KatyMac

Have always had badger sett on my land and (fingers firmly crossed) no TB for a very long time.
I also take proactive actions in that lick buckets are hung high on gates/fences and the drinkers are also high.
Neighbour of mine declared war on badgers on his land and every year there was a reactor or two, so recently he stopped culling badgers and has had several clear tests. We think as others have said that as badgers are territorial if you kill 'your own' then you are leaving the area free for others to move in.

blue5000

Capercaillie wrote: »

Interfers with TB skin test. Can't separate vaccinated animals from actual Tb infected animals.

I think one of the problems with TB is the skin test, we've been using it for approx 60 years and we still have TB in our cattle.

Insanity : doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Albert Einstein

runawaybishop

Count Mondego wrote: »

I wonder why Scotland is now practically TB free, herds tested every 4 years now. Plenty of badgers living there too.

Its not the badgers - they avoid areas with cattle usually. More likely deer or domestic farm animals.

st1979

runawaybishop wrote:

Its not the badgers - they avoid areas with cattle usually. More likely deer or domestic farm animals.

Think your dreaming if you think its not badgers. Where do badgers drink. Same place cattle do. Not saying they gave it to cattle. Cattle probably gave it to them first. But there is a reserve of tb in the wildlife population. You can eradicate it in your herd but the wildlife can then reinfect the cattle. Wicklow is extremely bad for tb due to having a lot of deer plus badgers. Its in Dept of Agri remit to control badgers in bad areas of tb but its parks and wildlife that look after control of deer which is not worried about tb.
Think there is a vaccine available but would affect our export markets. Which is a pity. Maybe a marker vaccine would be the answer.

Aru

we have to be able to prove tb clear in order to export cattle and in order to certify for the animal produce markets. Thats why we are stuck with the skin test and cannot vaccinate cows unfortunately.

We would not have as successful agriculture industry without the ability to export cattle and cattle products.products being the big issue!for every animal whose exported how much beef and dairy products do you think we sell abroad?our exports are essential.
for example we working on having 20% of the WORLD market of baby formula being produced in Ireland now that the quotas have gone.Think of the jobs and community wide effects that sort of industry has and how much worse off we would be without it.We have to be able to certify our animals health according to international standards.The skin test is the current standard
So we are stuck dealing with only one option for vaccinating and to be honest vaccinating badgers isn't very practical.

An accurate blood test for tb would be the optimum. Look how far we have come with brucellosis! But at the minute by all accounts blood testing isnt perfect at the minue.and it isnt considered as specific and reliable a test as the skin.In time hopefully it will advance.

I do think badgers can spread tb and I think in outbreak areas a cull should be considered if badgers are a suspect cause,there is a pattern to these things usually.The dept do this already though.How heavily they advertise this fact I do not know.I suspect as little as possible because the animal rights people are not understanding of the idea of culls.

I would be anti culling badger populations without cause. Why kill them if they are causing no issues? they are a native species and serve a role.
Management helps dramatically.Keeping the troughs and drinkers difficult to access etc Know your own populations.be worried if you see them at times they should not be about!
I suspect however that we will never be entirely rid of tb due to the wildlife populations.Vaccination of badgers is unlikely to reach herd immunity levels..i think its over 85 percent?before a vaccine controls a disease we have to reach and maintain herd immunuty levels,the exact figure might be wrong though.

Across the world tb is an issue in animal and human populations.Its not easily controlled at all.Despite the bcg vaccine we are still facing tb outbreaks in humans.If we cant manage human health with vaccination I worry about the hopes for animal health.

Its all well and good saying new zealand has eradicated it but in reality they eradicated a non native carrier species that was causing issues to do so,we cant do that...and they still test for tb with a skin test!

Scotland is an unusual case due to size of farms and amount of contact between animals from other herds.(ie there isnt a lot!)but they monitor levels all the same...with a skin test
England and wales is a disaster in some areas and no problem in others.While our tb figures go down theirs are rising yearly.
IMO More and more of England is going down with tb due to their laxity both in culling wildlife and in restricting animal movements from problem areas..ie you can buy an animal from wales where there in endemic tb and move it to an area of england where there is no tb and they do 4 yearly testing on the basis of a single test.The reactor tests here are 3 tests set apart for a reason...but theres also a lot of politics at play there and agriculture in england is not as strong or as important a sector as in Ireland.

I could talk for hours on tb :P

Count Mondego

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its not the badgers - they avoid areas with cattle usually. More likely deer or domestic farm animals.

It's badgers in my area. Have caught them in fields on trail cam. Have been wiring up gates and topping up boundary walls to keep them out. Starting to work. They come from both sides of our farm.

runawaybishop

st1979 wrote: »

Think your dreaming if you think its not badgers. Where do badgers drink. Same place cattle do. Not saying they gave it to cattle. Cattle probably gave it to them first. But there is a reserve of tb in the wildlife population. You can eradicate it in your herd but the wildlife can then reinfect the cattle. Wicklow is extremely bad for tb due to having a lot of deer plus badgers. Its in Dept of Agri remit to control badgers in bad areas of tb but its parks and wildlife that look after control of deer which is not worried about tb.
Think there is a vaccine available but would affect our export markets. Which is a pity. Maybe a marker vaccine would be the answer.

Culling badgers has been shown to be virtually useless and has next to no effect on tb numbers. Theres a study in the UK using GPS to track badgers and cattle and so far it shows the badgers actively avoid cattle and do not use the same spaces in general, unlike deer for example which are more likely to be vectors. The idea that badgers are the root cause was the result of a terrible 'study' where they stuck a few badgers with tb in a shed with some cattle for a few days and then decided that badgers were what was spreading the disease, despite the experiment being hugely flawed.

ganmo

runawaybishop wrote: »

Culling badgers has been shown to be virtually useless and has next to no effect on tb numbers. Theres a study in the UK using GPS to track badgers and cattle and so far it shows the badgers actively avoid cattle and do not use the same spaces in general, unlike deer for example which are more likely to be vectors. The idea that badgers are the root cause was the result of a terrible 'study' where they stuck a few badgers with tb in a shed with some cattle for a few days and then decided that badgers were what was spreading the disease, despite the experiment being hugely flawed.

oh and the study you refer to isn't flawed? just because the badger and cow dont occupy the same space at the same time doesn't mean the badger can't infect the cow.

and tb is in many areas in the country where there are no deer

Buford T. Justice XIX

ganmo wrote: »

oh and the study you refer to isn't flawed? just because the badger and cow dont occupy the same space at the same time doesn't mean the badger can't infect the cow.

and tb is in many areas in the country where there are no deer

+1

No deer within 30 miles of us, just badgers, culling showing over 50% with TB.

All herds closed bar stock bulls which have all passed TB test in the breakdown in my area.

Common sense would dictate that migrating badgers brought the disease in seeing as all the herds were closed bar single animals coming in which showed clear in all the tests.

Buford T. Justice XIX

runawaybishop wrote: »

Culling badgers has been shown to be virtually useless and has next to no effect on tb numbers. Theres a study in the UK using GPS to track badgers and cattle and so far it shows the badgers actively avoid cattle and do not use the same spaces in general, unlike deer for example which are more likely to be vectors. The idea that badgers are the root cause was the result of a terrible 'study' where they stuck a few badgers with tb in a shed with some cattle for a few days and then decided that badgers were what was spreading the disease, despite the experiment being hugely flawed.

Google 'East Offaly Badger Research Project'.

First result is a synopsis of the research, from the Dept Ag Ag site.

'In particular, the total number of herd restrictions in the removal areas for the study period was almost 60% lower than in the pre study period'.

Fourth result from JM griffin from 'Preventative Veterinary Medicine'-

The impact of badger removal in the control of tuberculosis in cattle herds in Ireland.

'The hazard ratios(removal over reference) ranged from 0.4-0.04(a 60-96% decrease in the rate at which herds were becoming the subject of a confirmed restriction).

I have no idea where you are getting your information but the results above are from published research in peer-reviewed academic journals.

Perhaps you could give a link to where you received that information?

westernrustler

Aristides Moustakas, Matthew R. Evans. Coupling models of cattle and farms with models of badgers for predicting the dynamics of bovine tuberculosis (TB). Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2015; DOI: 10.1007/s00477-014-1016-y

greysides

westernrustler wrote: »

Aristides Moustakas, Matthew R. Evans. Coupling models of cattle and farms with models of badgers for predicting the dynamics of bovine tuberculosis (TB). Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2015; DOI: 10.1007/s00477-014-1016-y

Link to article about that research.

For their paper Coupling models of cattle and farms with models of badgers for predicting the dynamics of bovine tuberculosis (TB), Professor Matthew Evans and Dr Aristides Moustakas used state-of-the-art computer modelling.

If I have to balance computer modelling against actual experimental experience..... I'll go with the experiment, thanks.

Professor of Ecology Matthew Evans

.... hmm.

The article's link doesn't seem to be working. There's an Abstract here.

westernrustler

You don't have to balance computer modelling against actual experimental evidence.

You just have to accept there is no scientific consensus in this issue , someone asked for peer reviewed scientific academic articles,

well , there ya go.. and heres another.


J. Bielby, C. A. Donnelly, L. C. Pope, T. Burke, R. Woodroffe. Badger responses to small-scale culling may compromise targeted control of bovine tuberculosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1401503111

greysides

westernrustler wrote: »

.


J. Bielby, C. A. Donnelly, L. C. Pope, T. Burke, R. Woodroffe. Badger responses to small-scale culling may compromise targeted control of bovine tuberculosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1401503111

Link.

westernrustler

I agree with the conclusions of the linked paper.

In a uk context it means culling is likely to be a non runner for political reasons.

In an irish context who knows. This thread shows the spread of opinions,and confirms me in my scepticism.