Fact sheet: Badgers and Bovine TB (bTB)
(updated 14 July  2010)

Bovine TB (bTB) is an infectious and contagious disease of cattle caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis. Although the main reservoir and natural host of M. bovis is cattle, humans and a wide range of mammals, including badgers and deer, are susceptible to the bacterium. In the 1930s, 40 per cent of cattle were infected in the UK – and approximately 50,000 people a year caught tuberculosis, contracted either through infected milk or close contact with infected cows (57). The subsequent pasteurisation of milk and compulsory slaughter of infected cattle greatly reduced the incidence (1).

Although bTB is rarely fatal in cattle, with signs of infection usually only appearing in advanced cases, it does lead to reduced milk yields, making it a particular concern for dairy farmers looking to maximise their profits (2).

Former Department for Environmental and Rural Affairs (Defra) junior minister Joan Ruddock said in 2008 that 91 per cent of cattle herds in the UK were free of the disease (30). According to the Government, the number of cases is actually decreasing in England and Wales, with around 36,000 cattle across Britain slaughtered because of the disease in 2009, while around 40,000 were killed in 2008 (50). This compares to approximately 90,000 dairy cows culled annually due to mastitis (infection of the udder), 31,000 due to lameness and 125,000 due to infertility (4). That figure is also dwarfed by the 2,595,000 cattle that were slaughtered by the UK livestock industry in 2009 for their meat or when their milk productivity dropped (51).

Bovine TB and Badgers 

There are less than 300,000 badgers in Britain. Although protected by laws to prevent badger baiting, licences can be granted by the Government for 'disease control' and 'research' reasons. Currently (July 2010) The Appeal Court found in favour of The Badger Trust and overturned plans to allow the Welsh Assembly to kill badgers in a trial area in Wales. The ruling highlighted the fact that a 'cull' could only expect a maximum drop in the instances of the disease by a paltry 9 per cent (clearly showing that the main cause lies elsewhere) (70). However, it is unclear if that is the end of the matter and badgers' future also remains uncertain in England (see below). Recent drops in the number of cattle being slaughtered suggests that cattle specific anti-bTB measures alone are working and 'culling' badgers should be dropped from the political agenda altogether.

As of June 2009, there were around 10 million cattle in the UK (38). Cattle farmers have long blamed badgers for the spread of bTB. In fact, research suggests there may be more reason to think that badgers catch bTB from cattle, possibly after feeding on larvae in cow pats left by infected cows. However, since the mid-1970s tens of thousands of badgers have been killed in an attempt to control the disease. Despite this, post-mortem examinations revealed that more than 80 per cent of those badgers were disease-free and in some infected areas, no badgers were infected (5). A Defra survey from 2002 to 2004 found that six out of seven badgers killed on roads in areas of high infection were also free of the disease (6).

In 1998, the Independent Scientific Group on bTB (ISG) was formed after a report by Sir John Krebs (Oxford University) claimed there may be a case for badger 'culling'. However, Krebs was clearly not sold on the idea even then, as he said in his 1997 report that: "The best prospect for control of TB in the British herd is to develop a cattle vaccine" (48). The ISG's investigation included the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), costing £34 million and taking 12,000 badgers' lives (24). The report was published in 2007 (25) and ISG chairman, Professor John Bourne (Animal Health, University of Bristol), reported that: "badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the control of bTB in Britain".

The report also found that 'culling' would increase the spread of the disease as surviving badgers would wander outside their normal range after their social group had been destroyed. TB infections in cattle increased by 27 per cent after the 'cull' in areas where badgers were the main suspects (27). This finding has continued to be supported by the research done into badger behaviour at the Government's badger research centre near Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, where tracking and testing of badgers has continued since the mid-1970s. The head researcher there is adamant culling badgers will make bTB worse and that farmers need to start backing the vaccination programme (67).

The Government's Agriculture Committee believe that cattle movements and husbandry play a much greater role in the spread of the disease than infected wildlife (7, 8). The ISG also identified herd size and cattle movements as having "particular relevance" and that cattle-to-cattle transmission was the "main cause of disease spread to new areas" (25). Average herd size has more than doubled to 107 since bTB was at its lowest in the 1970s and the ISG recognised that infections increase with larger herds (25).

The same year, Bourne's categorical findings were challenged by the Government's Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir David King, who rushed out his own report within months, urging a 'cull' (41). The King report was smaller, had fewer experts – and only met for a single day. Bourne and Nature, a leading science journal, heavily criticised the King report as "hastily written", "superficial", riddled with "small mistakes" and appeared to have been "written to please the farmers" (26). The result is that it gave the Government an excuse to instigate a 'cull' should they want to appease farmers who still clamoured for one.

Lords Krebs, who founded the original badger 'cull' trials, was also highly critical of the King report. He has stated that simple measures such as improved cattle testing and keeping badgers and cattle apart would cost less than a 'cull' are "as likely to work". He also expressed concern that a badger 'cull' across the UK could kill at least 170,000 animals – more than half the UK population (41).

Any badger 'cull' would be an animal welfare disaster. Snaring and gassing are incredibly cruel but the main method is likely to be live cage traps and night shooting. While traps cause huge distress (the method Wales is using), with shooting, many badgers would simply be injured. As the ISG acknowledges, both methods will leave cubs to starve to death in the setts (25).

In July 2008, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn announced that licences would not be issued for killing badgers in England, as he believed that 'culling' could make the situation worse. However, in Wales, the intention to kill badgers was announced in April 2008. Wales' chief vet, Dr Christianne Glossop, admitted that badgers could be wiped out in certain parts of Wales and a wider 'cull' could last into the 2030s (36). The move was denounced by Viva! and many other groups, including The National Trust, Save the Badger and The Badger Trust, as a blatant move to appease farmers. Partly because of campaigning by groups such as Viva! the decision where to hold any trial 'cull' was delayed until early 2009. However, the Welsh Assembly announced that a trial 'cull' was to take place in north Pembrokeshire and neighbouring parts of Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire, with the killing due to start in early summer 2010. The Badger Trust tried to get a Judicial Review to look at the legality of the 'cull', but that was refused in April 2010. However, in July 2010, the Appeal Court ruled to squash the Welsh Assembly's plans to 'cull' badgers in Wales. It remains to be seen if the Welsh Assembly will amend plans and reintroduce them.

The Welsh Assembly have repeatedly ignored new evidence showing the futility of badger 'culling', including a survey by Imperial College London and the Zoological Society of London which found that a 'cull' would not work and that managing badger populations to stop them spreading TB to cattle actually costs more than the impact of the disease itself (43).

Assembly officials in Wales said the intention was to reduce the badger population "as far as we can" during 'culls' over the next five years (42). The proposals also included extra stringent cattle controls. However, it was clear that there would be no way of determining the success, or otherwise, of either approach. This means that a reduction in bTB could have been attributed to falling badger numbers, whereas stricter cattle control methods would, undoubtedly, be the real reason for the reduction. The fear was that this scattershot approach would have been used to skew figures and push for a wider 'cull' across the rest of Wales. This was backed up in February 2010, when ex-senior scientific adviser to the UK government, Dr Chris Cheeseman, called the 'cull' in Wales "perverse", and said the decision "flies in the face of the science" (44).

In England, the threat of a badger 'cull' returned with the election of a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition in May 2010. Both parties backed 'culling' badgers as part of their manifestos, despite the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, previously opposing a 'cull'. He said in 2008, "The bias and evidence of that ten-year review was badger culls simply move the problem to other areas". He added, "Secondly, Defra just doesn't have the money to do it. We can't move forward in the absence of clearer evidence and in the absence of better resources for Defra." (45) Clegg has not explained his U-turn and has not explained how this would work in light of the recently announced cuts at Defra.

In May 2010, confusion seemed to reign within the coalition, as the new Defra secretary, Caroline Spelman, ruled out an immediate 'cull', saying that she needed time to examine the science and wanted to observe the results of the Welsh trial – even though that is due to last for five years. The next day, Defra farm minister, Jim Paice, announced that a 'cull' would take place as soon as TB hot-spots had been identified and revealed that the Conservatives have spent the last year of opposition planning for this eventuality (47). This was announced at the Devon County Show and speculation has arisen that Devon and Cornwall (which are both bordered by sea) could form the basis for a 'cull' area akin to that in Wales. There have also been fears that the English government would sidestep getting their owns hands bloody by issuing licences to farmers to kill badgers. This decision would be disastrous, and would encourage the spread of the disease by displacing badgers.

Late in May 2010, updated data from Imperial College London appeared to show that 'culling' could reduce bTB incidences in cattle. What was under-reported was that this was an apparent anomaly and the scientists behind this research still held firm to the findings of the ISG report that 'culling' of badgers could not meaningfully reduce the disease in badgers (68).

It remains to be seen which way the new coalition will turn, but Caroline Spelman seemed to let slip that the coalition was determined to kill badgers in England during an interview on GM crops with The Guardian in June 2010 (69). However, the defeat of the Welsh Assembly at the Appeal Courts in July 2010 suggests that she may need to think again.

Moves to 'cull' badgers also ignores Defra statistics that show that TB in cattle is declining across Britain without the death of a single badger. Overall, there were 438 fewer Total New Herd TB incidents in 2009 compared to 2008 - with cases falling in both Wales and the South West of England (65).

Already an estimated 50,000 badgers are killed on Britain's roads each year – around one sixth of the population (64). However, with a 'cull' looming there is also concern that farmers may be taking matters into their own hands. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been an increase in badgers being illegally killed and dumped by the roadside to look like the victims of traffic accidents.


Disingenuous concern?

There has also been an increase in calls to implement a 'cull' to 'end the suffering of badgers' infected with TB, despite the fact badgers with TB can live a number of years without displaying clinical symptoms. The Badger Trust said that there was no scientific proof that TB caused unbearable suffering in badgers and accused pro-'cull' groups of trying to influence the public into thinking that a 'cull' would be in the badgers' best interest (49).
 

Damaging Biodiversity

Little thought has seemingly been given to the removal of one species from a delicate ecosystem. Dr Dan Forman from the Conservation Ecology Research Team of Swansea University, in a letter to Elin Jones in May 2010, said: "It has been well established over several decades of research that habitats are incredibly fragile and that removal of top predators can cause a huge shift in the ecology and stability of ecosystems that can directly reduce species diversity." (66) In other words, we mess with wildlife at out peril. A policy to reduce biodiversity is especially at odds with  global efforts to preserve it.


Non-violent approaches

The rush to slaughter ignores new, non-lethal solutions. An injectable badger vaccine was scheduled to be trialled in England throughout 2010, but the fate of the trial is unknown now there has been a change of government and policy at Westminster. An oral vaccine is expected by 2014 while a cattle vaccine is expected in 2015 (30). The irony being that the cattle vaccine will be available at the end of the five year trial 'cull', rendering the slaughter of Welsh wildlife even more meaningless.

A 2009 Defra report – Options for vaccinating cattle against bovine tuberculosis – admitted that a cattle vaccine would not be a cure-all, but did say that it: "…has potential benefits to reduce prevalence, incidence and spread of bTB in the cattle population" (63). This would be a sensible approach, as bTB is a cattle disease and cattle remain by far and away the largest vector (or carrier), for the disease. Surprisingly, there appears to be little support within the farming lobby for a cattle vaccine – probably because it may inconvenience them financially. As the situation stands, the EU would not accept milk from cattle that have been vaccinated. Therefore the report acknowledges that EU legislation would need to be changed. There appears to have been no momentum from either government nor the farming lobby to make this happen, even though it is undeniably the best long-term method to move towards eradication of bTB within cattle.

Further limits on cattle movements, tighter on-farm biosecurity and improved testing would also curb the spread of bTB.
 

Approaches abroad

The insistence on targeting wildlife is based on other eradication programmes overseas. This includes New Zealand, where the non-native Australian possum has been blamed for the spread of bTB – although only two per cent of New Zealand possums have the disease (52). New Zealand controversially uses poisons including the indiscriminate 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate), which is fatal to most animal life and is dropped from helicopters into areas of high TB prevalence. This practice has been widely criticised by those living in these areas, as well as the tourism sector which feels that it is being ignored in favour of the dairy and beef industries (53). Once an area has been decimated of possums, the area is put into 'maintenance mode' – meaning that less than 30 per cent of the numbers of the original population remain. Even then, the government there has admitted that very few areas are now bTB-free (54). It is dangerous to model any eradication scheme on what has been done in other countries. It is stated that cattle have a tendency to lick sick possums (55), but there is no evidence that such contact happens between badger and cattle in the UK. The scorched earth policy in New Zealand, if repeated here, would mean that badgers would be wiped out in large areas – and this imbalance would have to be maintained in the long term. In essence, the UK has a choice between removing indigenous wild animals almost completely, or tackling the livestock industry which is at the heart of the problem. The final irony is that New Zealand is moving away from 'culling' and moving towards vaccination of wildlife – just at a time where the UK is moving in the opposite direction.

Until recently, Northern Ireland had the worst bTB incidence anywhere in Europe but has virtually halved the incidence of the disease since 2002 through cattle controls without killing badgers. It now has fewer cases per 1,000 cattle than either Wales or England (28). However, there are those still calling for a 'cull' in Northern Ireland. This despite the ‘Four Areas Trial’, which ran from 1997 to 2002, concluding in 2005 that "... the widespread removal of badgers was not considered a viable strategy for long-term control of bTB".

A 2009 report by Northern Ireland Audit Office also made the clear the suspicion that there might be widespread fraud for claims for bTB compensation (62). With compensation at sometimes 100 per cent the market value, it raises the question whether cattle herds might purposefully be put in contact with bTB for considerable financial returns. In fact the report stated that, "... the inherent risk of fraudulent claims is clearly very high". This raises the question of whether fraud takes place elsewhere, including the UK. In other words, it raises a potential concern that cattle may be deliberately infected for compensation.

The Republic of Ireland has virtually eliminated badgers in most cattle farming areas yet the number of herds infected is still twice as high as in Britain (28). The Green Party, which has recently entered coalition government, has pledged to end the 'culling' of badgers in the Republic, but no date has yet been set.
 

Cattle Movements and testing

In 1990, there were 173 recorded outbreaks of bTB in cattle herds but by 2007, that had increased to 2,229 with 27,598 individual cattle slaughtered (3). This followed the rapid re-stocking of farms after the 2001 foot and mouth disease (FMD) epidemic. Under EU regulations cattle must be routinely tested for bTB, with infected animals slaughtered and movement restrictions placed on the farms. During the 2001 FMD outbreak, most TB testing was suspended and in breach of EU regulations, Defra failed to impose movement restrictions on those herds not tested (10).

Despite several highly-contagious diseases among UK cattle, over 13 million cattle movements take place every year as farmers buy and sell stock. Closely mirroring the recent rise in bTB cases is the rise in cattle movements, with 619,107 more cattle moved in 2006 than 2005 (40). Cattle movements have quadrupled between 1999 (3,373,646) and 2008 (13,445,566 – latest complete figures) and have involved around 137 million animals (39).

The ISG report also made clear that present methods of control – surveillance, testing and slaughter – are not working. The evidence shows that tests are highly inaccurate, missing around one third of all infected animals, leaving them to re-infect other cattle (35). The report went on to say that better farming practices and not 'culling' were likely to reverse the increase in bTB (25). Even former Defra Minister, Ben Bradshaw, highlighted the near irrelevance of badger slaughter by admitting that 80 per cent of bTB outbreaks are caused by cattle (11).

Movement of cattle in the periods between routine herd bTB tests has long been recognised as a cause of new infections, even in relatively disease-free areas. Unbelievably, animals taken to agricultural shows do not have to be pre-tested. Mixing animals from many different areas has the potential to spread TB easily among them and then back to their farms. In 2009, the final report on bTB by the Bovine TB Advisory Report highlighted this as a risk (56).

The Cost

The farming lobby has long decried the financial costs of the bTB epidemic, yet they are compensated for every animal that is slaughtered – up to £1,924 for dairy cows and up to £3,755 for beef cattle (32). There is also growing evidence that a 'cull' of badgers – quite apart from the welfare implications and futility of its aims – would be difficult to conduct and could cost more than triple the supposed savings to the industry. In other words, it would be a colossal waste of money.

In 2007, Defra research concluded that "... no method of badger culling gave a certainty, or even a high probability, of a net economic benefit over 15 years" – this despite simulating 'culling' in areas up to 400km².

As already mentioned, the 2010 survey by Imperial College London and the Zoological Society of London found managing badger populations to stop them spreading TB to cattle cost more than the impact of the disease (43). Professor Christl Donnelly, senior author of the study from the MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling at Imperial College London, said any supposed benefits of 'culling' vanished after fours years – and the cost of 'culling' badgers was up to three times as much as the potential savings to the industry (59). She went on to say: "I would suggest people seriously consider badger vaccination over a long period". Lord Krebs, who initiated the original badger trials, also expressed similar opinions on the cost-effectiveness – or lack of – of badger 'culling' (41).

The Welsh badger 'cull' programme would have been hugely expensive and was estimated to cost at least £10 million. With a projected 'cull' number of 1,500 over five years, translating to costing a staggering £6,666 per badger.

In 2010, Paul and David Torgerson argued in the journal Trends in Microbiology that bTB is a negligible health risk to humans in the UK, providing that milk is pasteurised – the process which cut infection in humans drastically since the height of infection in the 1930s (58). They said that cow to human infection was extremely rare. Therefore, they said that the cost of a TB eradication programme in the UK was of no benefit to society and was a huge waste of money. Indeed, they even argued that eradication showed little evidence of a positive cost benefit to the livestock industry. They also pointed out that few studies have been undertaken on the direct costs of bTB to animal production.
 

Cattle Husbandry

The demand for badgers to be killed has diverted attention away from the many serious health problems faced by intensively-reared cattle – pneumonia, E. coli, coccidiosis (fatal diarrhoea), salmonella and mastitis. They are all increasing and are attributed to 'poor nutrition', 'poor management' and 'poor welfare' by the Government's 1997 Animal Health Report (12). Similar considerations must apply to the spread of bTB.

Disease does not solely result from contact with a pathogen but also from an animal's inability to combat that pathogen. Stress reduces the body's ability to fight disease and intensive farming produces animals who are physically and mentally stressed – none more so than the modern dairy cow (65).

High stocking densities increase stress, as do high milk yields and both have increased dramatically over the last 30 years. Milk yield has gone up from an average of 3,700 litres annually to 8-10,000 in the modern, high-yield Holstein (16). Forced to give birth to a calf every year in order to keep this enormous milk supply going, dairy cows spend seven months out of every year simultaneously pregnant and producing large quantities of milk.

This crushing double burden results in a quarter of the national dairy herd being killed every year – physically exhausted at only four to five years old when they could naturally live to be at least 20 (17). On top of this immense physical stress, dairy cows also suffer the repeated emotional trauma of having their newborn calves torn away from them within 48 hours of birth. An unbearable anguish that would take its toll on any mother.

Although dairy cows graze outdoors from April to October, for the remaining six months of the year they are confined in indoor cubicles (18). The overcrowded, unsanitary conditions and high humidity lead to high levels of lameness and mastitis. It is also an ideal environment for transmission of bTB, the Irish bTB study confirms this (15).

Cows who once grazed mainly on grass are now also fed concentrated, high-protein feeds such as soya and maize to increase their milk yields, typically forming 30-50 per cent of their diet. This seems to affect their health as grain-fed cattle can have 100 times more E. coli 0157:H7 in their gut, for example (19). This, combined with a fall in the nutritional quality of animal feed, appears to have reduced their ability to fight disease. The lack of genetic diversity in modern farmed animals also plays a part (12). Also grazing has its problems as the common practice of slurry spreading can represent a potential source of bTB (15, 22).
 

The Vegan Solution

If, like us, you are outraged by this scapegoating of badgers as a cover for cruel, incompetent and unsustainable farming practises, there is one blindingly obvious solution – reject milk and other dairy products and switch to a vegan diet.
 

References

1. Institute for Animal Health online: http://www.iah.bbsrc.ac.uk/public_info/topics/Mastitis.html

2. University of Oxford (2005). Press release: Cattle movements the most significant factor in spread of bovine TB, 26^th May. http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2004-05/may/26.shtml

3. Defra (2008) TB Incidences in Great Britain - Cattle. http://statistics.Defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/tbpn.pdf

4. Sibley, R. (2003). Rethink health strategies. Farmers Weekly. February 28th 2003

5. Defra (2003). Update on Bovine statistics. TB Forum paper TBF 87, points 13-15 www.Defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb

6. Defra (2005) Road Traffic Accident Survey (RTA), 2002 - 2004.

7. Gilbert et al. (2005). Cattle movements and bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain. Nature 435, 491-496; 2005. 26 May 2005.

8. Phillips, C., Foster, C.,  Morris, P. and Teverson, R (2001). The role of cattle husbandry in the development of a sustainable policy to control M. bovis infection in cattle. Report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

10. Wildlife and Countryside Link Statement on Bovine TB, May 2004.

http://www.badger.org.uk/tb/WCL-statement-2004.pdf

11. Badger Trust (2005) Bovine TB Strategy. Available from: www.badger.org.uk

12. Soil Association Policy Paper: Animal Health - The Prevention of Infectious Livestock Diseases (2002). Available from: www.soilassociation.org

15. Griffin, J. M., Hahesy, T., Lynch, K., Salman, M. D., McCarthy & Hurley, T (1993).  The association of cattle husbandry practices, environmental factors and farmer characteristics, with the occurrence of chronic bovine tuberculosis in dairy herds in the Republic of Ireland.  Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 17, 145-160.

16. Farm Animal Welfare Council (1997) Report on the Welfare of Dairy Cattle.

17. Roebuck (2005) Herd health and machinery integral to profitability. Farmers Guardian, May 6.

18. Defra (2002) Dairy cow welfare throughout the year. Papers presented at DEFRA/ADS meeting on 6 Nov. 2002. Easton College, Norwich.

19. Couzin J., 1998, 'Cattle diet linked to bacterial growth', Science 281 pp1578-1579.

20. Udris, G. A. (1983). Trace elements in the preventive treatment of bovine TB. Vet. Moscow, 2 17-20.

21. HMSO (1997). The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer: Animal Health 1997. London: The Stationery Office.

22. Hahesy, T., Scanlon, M., Carton, O. T., Quinn, P. J. and Lenehan, J. J. (1992). Cattle manure and the spread of bovine tuberculosis. Tuberculosis Investigation Unit, University College Dublin. Selected Papers 1992, 1-6.

24. McCarthy, Michael (2008). The Big Question: Should badgers be culled to check the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle?. Independent. April 2006.

25. Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (2007). Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence: A Science Base for a Sustainable Policy to Control TB in Cattle: An Epidemiological Investigation into Bovine Tuberculosis

26. In for the cull. Nature - International Weekly Journal of Science 450. November 2007.

27. Meikle, James (2008). Background: Badgers and bovine TB. Guardian. April 2008.

28. Badger Trust Cymru Report (2008). Facing the senseless slaughter: the fate of Wales' badgers.

29. Gassing ruled out as a culling option. Farmer's Guardian. 6 March 2008.

30. Bovine TB: DEFRA defends dithering government, Farmers Weekly, 21 March 2008

31. Badger culls spark tourism boycott ultimatum, Daily Post, 15 May 2008

32. Defra (2008) Compensation for Bovine TB, BSE, Brucellosis and Enzootic Bovine Leukosis

35. Lawson, Trevor (2008) Badger Trust Press release

36. Badger cull could be 'hugely expensive', Farmer's Guardian, 30 May 2008

38. Defra (2009) Agriculture in the UK (2009), Chapter 3: The Structure of the Industry

39. Rural Payment Agency figures

40. Email from Kathryn Wood, Management Information Team, Rural Payment Agency, 6 June 2008

41. There are better ways to curb TB, says founder of badger cull trials, Western Mail, 24 June 2008

42. Plans for badger cull approved, The Independent, 13 January 2010

43. Badger culls fail to halt spread of cattle tuberculosis, study shows. The Guardian, 10 February 2010

44. Pembrokeshire badger cull decision 'perverse', BBC News, 22 February 2010

45. Clegg won't back badger cull, Western Morning News, 7 February 2008

46. Minister blocks cull of badgers in bovine TB hotspots, The Times, May 20 2010

47. Minister confirms badger cull to combat bovine TB, Farmers Weekly, 21 May 2010

48. Bovine TB: Vaccine research, Defra

49. Badger Trust letter to Jim Fitzpatrick, 25 February 2010

50. Farmer's Guardian website

51. Defra (2009) Agriculture in the UK (2009), Table 5.13 Cattle and calves, beef and veal; United Kingdom

52. Landcare research, Possums and TB

53. KAKA 1080 Group, Tourism and 1080 on the West Coast

54. TeAra.govt.nz, TB and possum control

55. Wild About New Zealand, Possums

56. Bovine Tuberculosis in England: Towards Eradication, Final Report of the Bovine TB Advisory Group, 8 April 2009

57.Reynolds D (2006) A review of tuberculosis science and policy in Great Britain, Veterinary Microbiology, Volume 112, Issues 2-4

58. Torgeson, Paul and David, Trends in Microbiology, Volume 18, Issue 2, February 2010

59. Benefits of badger culling not long lasting for reducing cattle TB, says study, Imperial College London, Media release, 10 February 2010

60. Wilkinson, Shirley and McFarlane, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Badger and Cattle Management, Report of Phase II: June 2005 to May 2007

61. Culling badgers ‘not a cost-effective way to stop TB’, Farmers Guardian, 10 February 2010

62. The Control of Bovine Tuberculosis in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Audit Office, 18 March 2009

63. Options for vaccinating cattle against bovine tuberculosis, Defra, 2009

64. 50,000 badgers are killed on Britain's roads every year, The Independent, 3 September 2006

65. Bovine TB: Detailed year-end TB statistics (by region), Defra

66. Letter to Elin Jones from Dr Dan Forman CBiol.MIBiol.EurProBiol, Conservation Ecology Research Team Department of Pure and Applied Ecology, Institute of Environmental Sustainability, Swansea University. 31 May 2010

67. TB: The science behind the decisions, Farmers Guardian, 4 September 2009

68. Conversation between Brian May and R. Woodroffe and K. Donnell from Imperial College London, June 2010

69. Environment secretary Caroline Spelman back GM crops, The Guardian, 4 June 2010

70. Cull: New calls for badger vaccination, Tivy-side Advertiser, 14 July 2010

Further reading: The Great Badger and Bovine TB Debate.