Badgers with TB should be subject to same rules as cows

I was once part of a small group that met a high-ranking minister from Defra. I had been given a question to ask her, but one she had seen. However, there was no way I was going to waste an opportunity like this.

I was the only farmer present in the group. I told her – although I was going out with the scripted message I had been given – I could tell she was giving me her full attention and being a farmer gave me a credibility she had not given the others present at this “game”.

Because that’s what it was, a game. What is the point of giving a politician a week’s notice for a question? No point at all.

So I told her at home we were within the week of our annual TB test and were due to do the readings the following day. I told her if any animals failed they would be sent for slaughter. I presumed she knew that, but I also told her about the cost implications for my business if there was a failure, the dilemma of what to do with bull calves and
beef calves, the impact on my cash flow if I couldn’t sell them and how I didn’t have the fodder or spare buildings to keep them.

I suggested she visit my farm at night so I could show her around my grazing cows. I guaranteed there would be badgers among those cows, not least because large woods adjoin all my fields.

No endgame

So, my point was this: if those badgers have TB, and they could, no matter how many of my cows went for slaughter, there would never be an endgame for me. In 10 years’ time I could still be getting reactors because cows were getting reinfected and I would still be in the same place.

I suggested it was not beyond the wit of man to determine whether those badgers had TB. If they didn’t, fine. If they did, they should be subject to the same regime as my cows.

To be fair to the minister, she agreed with me and said my point was well made. The shuffling of papers from her posse of civil servants showed she had gone off message too. Going off message or not following the prescribed script can have repercussions. I was at Twickenham when the Welsh rugby team went off script – the repercussions of that will go on for a long time.

My meeting with the Defra minister was several years ago, but what I said is just as relevant today as it was then. Why have a set of rules for one species and a set of rules for another? Now I read badger faeces and urine can be reliably tested for TB.

Surely this is the answer. To test setts in this manner seems sensible. It’s got to be much cheaper than the present cull methods. Because of how badgers live underground, it’s very predictable that if one animal has TB, it’s only a matter of time until the others get it.

If a positive result is obtained near a sett, it should be a simple matter to euthanise the badgers in the sett in a humane manner. It would be less emotive than the shooting cull that is, by its very nature, extremely random. If I was a badger living in the cull area and didn’t have TB, but was shot, I wouldn’t be best pleased about it.

Both sides of the badger TB argument say science is on their side, but science, being what it is, cannot do that, unless the answer is so obscure there isn’t one.

How much bTB is down to badgers?

The part I find difficult to understand is how much bTB is down to badgers. I remember a high-profile member of the veterinary profession telling me badgers were responsible for 25% of cattle infections. I don’t know how he arrived at this figure; but, knowing the vet, I don’t think he wet his finger and put it in the air to see which way the wind was blowing.

On an episode of BBC’s Countryfile, it spent half of its item on bTB trying to minimise the impact of badgers. I can’t remember what percentage it arrived at, but I think it was in single figures; which is a very long way from the 25% my vet friend quoted.

What exactly is the true figure? How would you arrive at it? It’s not an answer, but I suspect you would arrive at it with great difficulty. This is surely why there is such variance in the figures quoted and why different sides of the argument can quote with such disparity.

The irony with that episode of Countryfile was, having spent time minimising the effect badgers have, the remainder told farmers how to badger-proof their yards so they couldn’t get in to infect their cattle.

The programme gave the issue of cattle mixing with badgers while grazing a clumsy body swerve. As they didn’t have an answer, they couldn’t recommend cattle were kept all year round in secure buildings – which was the way their argument was heading – because people like to see cattle grazing in fields.

I haven’t seen a live badger for years, but I know I could see one tonight if I went out in my truck.

I know they are there because I see their setts, tracks and where they have turned over dung pats searching for grubs.

I don’t go out because driving around fields at night with your headlights on looking at badgers is a good way of ending up in the “slammer”. I’d just like to know if they have TB.