Government continues to consider new cull licences despite promising to end the cull

Today (Thursday 5th) is the last day to respond to the government's controversial consultation to once again cull badgers in a bTB low risk area of Cumbria.

Last week, the government declared that badger culling in England will end by 2029. Despite senior Defra officials declaring to Badger Trust that it is unlikely that any new licences will be granted, an application for a new badger culling licence in the low risk area of Cumbria has now been made to Natural England.

A four-year-long trial of epidemiological badger culling conducted in Cumbria from 2018 to 2021 showed removing badgers had no significant contribution to controlling bTB in cattle [1]. Yet, once again, the government are considering culling badgers here.

Even if government-licensed shooters cull all the badgers in an area, the Cumbria trial revealed the inability to completely remove bTB from the cattle herds using current testing mechanisms. Therefore, cattle will continue to re-infect each other, the repopulating badgers and other wildlife [1].

For example, researchers in Cumbria found that the bTB strain responsible for a bTB outbreak came from infected cattle imported from Ireland. These cattle were imported six years before the same strain appeared in badgers [2], meaning it was highly likely that cattle initially transmitted bTB to the surrounding wildlife. 

Peter Hambly, Executive Director of Badger Trust, said,

“The Labour government has already said that the badger cull is ineffective and that they want to focus on other effective methods of bTB eradication that have a real-world impact. 

To have reopened the consultation process for a new cull licence could set a terrible precedent and continue the mistruth about the badger cull.  They should know better.”

Current testing policy can leave 80% of cattle untested for bTB in their lifetime.

The current herd-based testing policy may leave up to 80% of cattle in England untested for bTB in their lifetime [3]. 

• Cattle testing in England can be as infrequent as every four years in low risk areas. 

• Movement between herds may result in animals either avoiding tests or cattle being slaughtered before the next testing regime. 

Cattle in England are also exempt from routine bTB testing under various conditions, including moving to exempt agricultural shows or from low-risk areas of England into low-risk areas of Wales, as well as cattle housed in artificial insemination facilities, and when travelling for veterinary treatment [4].

Weak cattle testing controls contribute to bTB disease spread

Weak testing controls in England have led to some regions developing greater farm connectivity, contributing to a more prevalent spread of the disease. 

For example, there is less bTB testing and fewer bTB disease controls and restrictions in the LRA and parts of the Edge area. Therefore, cattle are easily moved between sites without stringent pre-movement testing [5]. As a result, new bTB incidence from the movement of undetected infected animals is the main bTB risk factor for cattle herds in Cumbria, Yorkshire and Humberside, Hampshire, and the North East of England [6]. 

The government needs to focus on better cattle measures in order to tackle bTB in cattle, stand behind the science and their statement that the badger cull is ‘ineffective’, and end the cull now.

---

[1]  Griffiths, L.M., Griffiths, M.J., Jones, B.M., Jones, M.W., Langton, T.E.S., Rendle, R.M. and Torgerson, P.R., 2023. A bovine tuberculosis policy conundrum in 2023. On the scientific evidence relating to the Animal and Plant Health Agency/DEFRA policy concept for ‘Epidemiological’ badger culling. An independent report by researchers and veterinarians to DEFRA and the UK Parliament. 

[2] Rossi, G., Crispell, J., Brough, T., Lycett, S.J., White, P.C., Allen, A., Ellis, R.J., Gordon, S.V., Harwood, R., Palkopoulou, E. and Presho, E.L., 2022. Phylodynamic analysis of an emergent Mycobacterium bovis outbreak in an area with no previously known wildlife infections. Journal of Applied Ecology, 59(1): 210-222. 

[3] Mitchell, A.P., Green, L.E., Clifton-Hadley, R., Mawdsley, J., Sayers, R. and Medley, G.F., 2006. An analysis of single intradermal comparative cervical test (SICCT) coverage in the GB cattle population. In Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine. Proceedings of a meeting held at Exeter, UK. 29-31: 70-86

[4] APHA, 2022. Pre- and post-movement testing of cattle in Great Britain. APHA [online]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-pre-movement-and-post-movement-testing-in-great-britain/cattle-movements-exemptions-from-pre-movement-or-post-movement-bovine-tb-testing [Date Accessed: 07.03.2023]

[5] Fielding, H.R., McKinley, T.J., Silk, M.J., Delahay, R.J. and McDonald, R.A., 2019. Contact chains of cattle farms in Great Britain. Royal Society Open Science, 6(2):180719.

[6] APHA, 2022. Bovine TB: epidemiology reports, 2021. Updated February 2023. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-epidemiology-reports-2021 [Date Accessed: 07.03.23]