Bovine TB idea 'bound to backfire'
GOVERNMENT plans to vaccinate badgers against bovine tuberculosis are "guaranteed to backfire", according to a leading independent expert.
Ueli Zellweger, who was trained in Switzerland but is now based at Minehead in Somerset, has become the latest in a long line of experts to hit out at Government plans to vaccinate badgers against TB.
-
He told the Beef Expo that vaccination was no "silver bullet" against the spread of the disease, which is responsible for the deaths of thousands of cattle each year.
He told last week's gathering, at the Three Counties Showground in Malvern, Worcestershire, that the plan would fail because it broke the two basic rules of vaccination – never to use the method on a stressed or weakened animal or on a creature which may already be infected.
He said plans to trap and manually inject badgers would mean they were under stress, which compromises the immune system.
It could also mean they were forced out of the sett, and would be more likely to roam around both other groups of badgers and farmyards, creating a higher risk of spreading the disease both within its own species and to cows.
"These weak badgers will move to a neighbouring sett to try and find an alternative dwelling. This in itself will cause fighting, encouraging the spread of TB between animals," he said.
"Weak animals will also try and find a convenient feed source, usually farmyards or feed troughs – yet again leading to more disease spread."
Mr Zellweger also said it was not always obvious when a badger was harbouring TB, and it was possible an infected animal could be vaccinated.
That could lead to the creature shedding more bacteria, heightening the risk of passing on the disease.
"If we were to blood or skin-test before vaccinating, the badger would have to be held for several days before the results came back. This would create more stress to the badger and would obviously not be practical," he said.
Dr Zellweger was involved in the highly successful TB eradication programme in Switzerland. "In my home country, TB was eradicated by isolating and closing down all reservoirs of TB. This included both badgers and cows."
"There is a point in vaccinating badgers, but only once all sources of TB have been located and culled. Only once TB has been eradicated should vaccination be considered.
"Defra's policies have lost contact with the countryside. Ultimately this will lead to the spread of TB throughout the country."
But a Defra spokesman said Mr Zellweger's comments did not have "any basis in existing research", whereas the vaccine development and badger vaccine deployment project were "underpinned" by scientific findings.
6 Comments
View all
by Charles Henry 1945-(diuturnity), Somersetshire
Monday, June 01 2009, 10:50AM
“:| NOT TRUE
After a long drawn out argument about after the abortive Krebs trials, these were Sir David King¿s conclusions.
1. Badgers are a clear source of infection for cattle. Reducing the density of badgers in those areas of England where there is a significant level of TB in cattle reduces the incidence of TB in cattle in the same area;
2. Removal of badgers should take place alongside the continued application of controls on cattle. Genuine commitment by all interested parties to the overall TB strategy is needed if TB is to be successfully controlled;
3. Removal of badgers is the best option available at the moment to reduce the reservoir of infection in wildlife. But in the longer term, alternative or additional means of controlling TB in badgers, such as vaccination, may become available. Research into these should continue;
4. Removal of badgers should only take place in those areas of the country where there is a high and persistent incidence of TB in cattle. It is not an appropriate measure in other areas.
5. The minimum overall area within which badger removal should take place is 100 km2, although increasing the area would increase the overall benefit;
6. Where there is inaccessible land within the overall removal area, badgers should be removed on the accessible land bordering it;
The full report, including an expanded list of conclusions, can be viewed at the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills website.”
by FactNotFiction, Devon
Monday, June 01 2009, 7:54AM
“What Theo Hopkins said IS true - the work was started in 1996 by MAFF under the then Conservative government and the conclusion drawn after 10 years was that badger culling could make no meaningful contribution to the control of bovine TB in the UK - why deny these facts? Whether the conclusion was correct or not is another matter, but Theo is stating plain facts. And Sarah's comment is based upon a highly misleading article that failed to mention that only a small proportion of the £300k spent in the duck project was attributable to the work highlighted by the article - i.e. identifying the most appropriate form of water availability for indoor-housed ducks. You can't have a sensible debate about any subject unless you have the basic facts straight.
Funny how 'experts' are to be derided when you don't agree with them but are of course absolutely right when you do!”
by Charles Henry 1945-(diuturnity), Somersetshire
Sunday, May 31 2009, 11:44AM
“:| That is just NOT true Theo.
But what ever way you want to read it . . Protecting the badger was a grave mistake. It was made by politicians just to garnish a few extra votes. . How many MORE veterinary scientists are you prepared to ignore? . Or will it need a personal loss to persuade you. I assume you don't have children or pets and you clearly care nothing for the problems being caused to agriculture in the West Country. . London beckons you Theo.”
by Theo H, Lifton
Sunday, May 31 2009, 10:49AM
“The Krebs Trials, the experient that cae to the conclusion that a cull of badgers would not stop bovine TB was not set up by Defra and New Labour, but was set up in 1996 by John Major and what was then MAFF.”
by Sarah, Surrey
Saturday, May 30 2009, 11:23AM
“Defra is of course the organisation that had to spend £300K to find out whether ducks liked rain”