CODEX WILDLIFE FORENSICS UK

BADGERS TODAY IN
THE UK.
BADGER RESEARCH PART 1 AND 2

2012

WALSALL UK
 THE BADGER TODAY.

ALL MY BADGER RESEACH DATA 2012

Ronnie Carleton 2012

Over many years I have been researching badgers here in the UK and
Ireland in the early days. Of course all research needs updating from
time to time and badgers as well as other wildlife projects the same.
No research and presenting data is not without hazards because
someone somewhere, or a number of people will at times disagree with
someones research. All to the good I say because at least the research
has been read and debated and as badgers is a very emotional topic it is
bound to raise hackles in some quarters.
A researcher must be allowed to have views and opinions in any
research of such a nature but he or she must also realize that at times
some of their research may not be correct and at times, more than a
little biased towards their subject. This of course is not a good way to
go because research is about facts and evidence but presented in such
a way that it at least gives a much broader picture of a topic.

This I have tried to do and getting all my past data along with the new
data put together as a project did mean that some of the old data I
rejected and some I brought up to date. In this book it is about the
badger in the UK and Ireland today, much of the research carried out in
the field but also some biology work in the Lab because there was more
that I needed to know.

Badgers are not bears as many think, but belong to the same family as
the otter, stoat, weasel, polecat/ferret, and pine martin. They do not
hibernate and can be found out even after heavy falls of snow, their
tracks easy to find and a good way to work out a badgers range in an
area.

If you have anything you care to add to badger research then please
contact me via email carletonronald3@gmail.com
 BADGER RESEARCH 2011. PART ONE.

Ronnie Carleton 2012

This research follows on as part of the 15 year research project on badgers in a

wooded hilly area in South Wales and I have also included and updated my other
research which is now included here.
The research area is a mixture of hilly grasslands and woods with some damp
wooded areas close by and two streams and a mile away a river. In all the group
of setts at the research site date back pre 1940> and dated via tree ringing that
was close to the site and on site itself when a tree blew down in a storm.
No work was carried out on tiding up the site and if trees blew down they were
left as they were.
This site is on the edge of a wooded hill, gets the sunrise and noon sun but there
is no sun on it in the evening, summer and winter.

Above: the very edge of the research site.

It should be noted that the only possible disturbance to the research site area are
a number of sheep at times that wander past feeding.
This badger group did have excess to a large mature conifer wood up to three
years ago and was clear felled in 2009 and then replanted with native species of
ash and oak. All the conifers were on the east side facing hill and a very dark
wood. From the sett area is was 800 m away and as the crow flies across a valley.
A stream runs down the edge of this new wood now and is all fresh water known
as stream 2.
Stream 1 is 10 m from the setts slightly downhill and always has fresh water
where badgers drink. A sheep wire fence divides the stream from the wooded
area where the setts are but the badger group have found ways under the wire in
order to drink.
In all in January 2012 there is two sows and one bore in residence in one part of
the group setts and two females and a boar at the other end, with all the young
from last year now gone. In total in Jan 2012 there is now 6 adults.
All the setts have been cleaned out and fresh bedding brought in with even the
dead holes cleaned out.

The Research area for 15 years.

Most of this wood is hazel and ash with the odd oak.
Badger by moonlight.

MY RESEARCH.

In the areas that this research has been carried out it was the direction of the
wind that was the main problem over the years because what started out as a
good badger observation evening at times ended in a blank because of wind
change. The wind is for the most SSW or SW sometimes in winter in the east but
it can change down in the hollow to W and even N. If it is blowing from the south
then you are stuck in the fern field on a slight hill which has no cover in winter
and in summer you are fed on by mugger midges within a few minutes, a curse in
fact. If however the wind is in the East then you are in the wood and looking
slightly uphill at the sets and you can also see movements of any badgers against
the sky at night. Also a cross the stream (Stream 1) there is a slight wooded rise
less than 15m away and directly across to all the sets. I intend to build a small
natural hide here at Easter 2012, in frame form and made from hazel wands.
The sections will then be carried into place during the day and erected and filled
with grass and ferns but with no roof. This will give a good view of the stream,
the badger setts and also the wooded area in front of the setts and behind the
stream.
This years research is going to be on diet again and cub behaviour.
Locatations of other nearby badgers is also going to be part of the research and
this will all take place within two sq miles of the main site.
I am also going to try and photograph all the badger faces close up and see if it is
possible to get an ID chart for future use. Samples of latrines will still be ongoing
as will the PM reports on badgers in road kills within the five sq miles of the site
looking for evidence of TB. In 15 years no road kills have shown any traces of TB
and in all 17 dead badgers have been examined.
There is no evidence that my research area has any badgers with TB within the
group but five miles away there has been reports in 2011 of a farmer with TB in
his cattle.
TB in cattle is bad for the farmer, bad for the badgers and other TB carriers
including some sheep and other mammals.

Badger with TB lesions.

It should be noted that all dead badgers found should be examined for lesions
and care taken that hands are washed afterwards even if gloves are worn, as they
should be. The possiblity of a badger with TB dying out in the open from TB
would be very rare but if it did happen then birds such as crows and magpies
will feed on it as well as kites and buzzards.
I can not rule out the real possiblity of foxes feeding on a dead TB badger but so
far I have had no reports in the area of such a thing happening.
Sheep however that have been brought in by farmers may in fact have TB in one
or more animals and it is beyond me why some farmers dont wise up and keep
cattle and sheep away from one another instead of running them together at
times with the real risk of TB contamanation from sheep to cattle or a TB cow to
sheep with not a badger sett even close by. A dead sheep that has TB should be
removed as soon as possible from a field and not thrown in a hedge or ditch as is
so often is the case and animals like foxes carrying away contamanited meat for
cubs as would some members of the crow family to feed their young in spring.
You would be surprised how many crows and magpies lose food in flight and it
drops to the ground.
I will not get involved in the debate on badger culling to combat TB only to state
that this will not work and in fact make matters much worse for farmers when
disturbed badgers that are infected and get way move into locations where there
was no TB and therefore a new outbreak will be reported. Most of the culling
programs will be a failure and TB will still be there when in fact TB vacanation
in pellet form in badger areas would be much better.

This is what TB looks like in badgers, sheep or cattle.

There is no getting away from the fact that other mammals do get infected with
TB that can infect cattle and that badgers are for the moment a good political
target that farmers say they want culled but research in the future will show that
the badger is only a very small part of the problem with TB in cattle and until
other mammals species research is carried out, domestic and otherwise the
badger will always be the scapegoat.
 BADGER BIOLOGY RESEARCH 2012

The Author The Research subject.

In this type of research there is no room for sentimentality towards a wild

mammal because as humans we are the most destructive mammal on planet
earth and what is needed in any wildlife research is understanding the subject,
gaining knowledge of it and of course adding to it. Human beings sadly think
they know it all, be it climate change or human diseases yet fail to see, or dont
want to see that this mammal is hell bent in damaging our planet beyond repair
or recovery. The human population worldwide may have peaked and like large
vole populations is set for a crash. This could well be from disease, a new type of
virus or one that has mutated and it would be rather ironic if it was from a new
strain of TB or HIV. Of course we could always have a cull of diseased out of
control humans which would help this planet but I fear that this will be a natural
one and not man made.

Badgers as a population group for study can teach us many things of how to live
in a society but with the rules of nature rather than man made ones and if we
cannot learn from nature then we know nothing of use for our own species.
Books may be useful, but you cannot eat them in times of hunger.
 THE BADGER IN THE UK AND IRELAND.

There is good evidence from fossil remains that the modern badgers that we
know today came from SE Asia and moved North and West 2.5 million years ago
and in time reached Britain and Ireland but the British remains I should point
out was much later and they were discovered in Boxgrove in West Sussex. These
were dated to the Early Pleistocene and > or < half a million years ago. From an
archaeology point of view and in my opinion then the human remains also found
on this site suggests that badgers and humans had contact and it may well be
that the badger was a food and fur source.
Badgers in Britain did have to retreat away from it due to the most recent
glaciation which lasted 11,500 years but many mammals including badgers did
take part in recolonisation across Europe following the retreat of the ice.
They reached Britain around 10,000 > and badger remains in Wales suggest this
date in the Heaton Cave, Clwyd and may even mingled with Arctic foxes and
even Reindeer.
This was also a time of Climate Chance and warming and 9,000> years badgers
could be found with wolves, brown bears, beavers and wild boars at the
Mesolithic site of Star Carr in Yorkshire which suggests to me that they were
living in Britain as they do today.
What surprised me from an archaeology point of view is that in the last 6000
years badger remain dating has been very low or not at all though a badger jaw
bone was recovered from the outer Hebrides and Early Bronze Age (4,000-3,500)
In Roman Exeter badger remains were also dated to that time but this does not
mean that badgers were in fact alive there but it means they got there somehow
dead or alive.
The Anglo-Saxon period was also sparse for badger remains AD 500-1,000 but
there had to be badgers around and know of because of the number of place
names for this time. Broc = badger.
Because badger remains have not been found as much as other animal and bird
remains in many of our archaeology sites in Britain or Ireland does not mean in
any form that they were not alive and well just that not as many were eaten or
hunted for their fur. I can tell you from a fresh road kill I once found that
badger meat is not for everyone and it is strong. You can eat it as long as you
dont think about it!
It is more than likely that the old remains found in the Hebrides islands was
taken there in the past as dead meat and for food but also for fat, fur and
leather. This suggests that they were in fact hunted during this time, killed and
shipped out by boat from the mainland.
Badgers were food for the Romans in Britain and those that lived in Europe
because the evidence of knife marks on badger bones suggested butchering
around that time. How badger meat was cooked of course but roast badger is
tough where a stew would make the meat more tender along with a great
handful of strong herbs. The badger in the past would also have been the meat of
the poor at times of great hunger like the Irish, Scottish and Welsh famines
because it was much better than eating grass and the dead nearby.
Tastes of course have changed because eating meat that was like that of a forest
floor no matter what you did with it and the badger fat used in cooking was not
much better I can assure you. I call these experiments living archaeology!
Badger hunting however in Tutor times was the first real form of persecution
and there was even a Tudor Vermin Act which dates from 1533< and a bounty
was also offered for dead badgers along with other species and a badger dead
was worth around 12p for each head. Things got much worse for the badgers of
course from 1759 onwards because the time had come of land enclosures for
hunting and known as private hunting areas for land owners and their paying
guests. All carnivores and birds of prey, including owls became vermin and
killed in every way that could be used and this believe it or now went on well into
the early 1960s. There was still a bounty on foxes and grey squirrels at this time
and otters in the UK were hunted with hounds also as sport.
Gamekeepers in employment from then on were still killing anything that had
claw, tooth or hooked beak that would take pheasants, grouse and partridges
and their chicks. Mass killing before the First World War and during the break
between the Great War and the Second World War was extreme for all non-
game species by keepers and some farmers. It must be remembered that a head
keeper would have a few under keepers on the Estate where game was reared for
sport and it came with tied accommodation for all those employed by the
landowners. Failure to supply game for the guns meant the sack and the loss of
your home so the more sport keepers provided for the rich the better chance they
had in keeping their jobs. Keepers also face the hazards of armed poaching
gangs at night and again a well organised gang of poachers could take a lot of
game at night and do more damage than foxes or badgers could do in a year.
Even up to the 1970s armed poachers would at times fire on keepers or rangers
at night if they were getting too close and an exchange of gunfire was not
uncommon as were beatings of poachers by keepers who they caught.
Today poaching still goes on and it has become a business in winter with deer
poaching on the top of the game list and keepers are still at risk HOWEVER
some gamekeepers are still snaring badgers, a protected species here in the UK
and many parts of Europe as well as birds of prey, owls and other protected
mammal species. There is no just cause for this and the keeper who gets caught
breaking the law should and does face court but his employer gets off because he
is a landowner.
Because of keepers the badger population in the UK only was at a very low ebb
and the number of keepers employed in the 1900s was officially 23,000 and if
you take it that each keeper killed only one badger per year as an example as
well as birds of prey it is little wonder that badgers and birds of prey were in
great danger in becoming extinct in some areas.
After World War One there was a decline in keepers in the UK because many of
them had been killed or wounded badger numbers rose and began to recover
and by the 1930s the badger population in Ireland and the UK became stable
again.
New badger surveys started to take place which started in 1963 and also in 1985
showed that in 1963 there were 36,000 recorded and in 1985 the number was
43,000 badgers in the UK and Ireland. There has been no real national survey
done since though local badger surveys are carried out. I would now put the
badger population in the UK and Ireland at < 55,000 with the added killing
factors besides keepers, farmers and others that RTA take a large yearly toll of
young badgers on our roads.
Today our relationship with the badger is more than complex and there are
those people who want to protect badgers and their habitat, many who see them
as cuddly wild mammals and no nothing of their biology and then those who
want them dead and gone. Public opinion therefore is for the moment on the side
of the badgers and most of it sentimental rather than good wildlife conservation
as I have found while cattle farmers tend to sweat blood and do have losses to TB
in their stock. Horror stories abound on both sides of the debate and unless the
real facts are disclosed about TB in other mammals that could be spread to cattle
the misinformation will go on.

In the past the badger was placed in the bear family when in fact it is
nothing of the kind but belongs to the same family as polecats, stoats, weasels,
otters, pine martins, and wolverines. That places them today in the Mustelidae
family and nowhere else.

Badgers at the sett in Wales.

In the UK and Ireland the Eurasian badger (meles meles) today seems to be
widely distributed but I should point out that in my research there are major
variations in population density and can range from Zero in parts of the east of
England and areas of Scotland to more than 18 adults in one family group in old
established setts in the Midlands and Central England. This shows that badgers
do much better where there is the right sort of habitat and little disturbance
from humans and traffic. What I had to look at was what offered badgers a
better area to live and which sort of areas they avoided or at least were in very
low numbers in the UK.
I found badgers living close to main roads in cities and towns in the Midlands
and coming into gardens at night to be fed which I would discourage when I
could because wild animals like badgers tend to become dependent on humans,
their worst enemy in fact. Pre baiting a badger area with peanuts or other food
for research purposes is one thing but feeding them daily in a human
environment is another.
What badgers really need therefore is a suitable climate, plenty of wild food close
by, water where they can drink, banks and the right sort of soil where they can
dig holes to live and breed, immunity from disease and too many humans and
their farm livestock, mainly cattle and sheep that can disturbed them, maybe
even infect them with disease rather than the other way around?
If an area suits their needs and is safe, they will add additional holes as they have
done on my main research site over the years and I should add I have mapped. I
have set an example below;

= Badger use in 2012

I have no intention of saying where this research survey area is only to state that
it is isolated and in a valley and needs protection.

Old female
males 2 females 4+
missing

cubs 2011
cubs 2012?
4

This site has a well-used worming field to the west where in winter I have
counted up to 7 badgers feeding in the moonlight on worms. It is always late
when they arrive as they have other badger business to attend to first. As this
field lies within the groups 1sq mile of their range and main setts more research
will be carried out here in 2012/13 spring and summer.

I will deal with this groups diet as found in my research over 15

years later but for the moment it seems that in mild winters 70% seems to be
worms, woodlice and hidden grubs.
The small hazel spiny where I do my research I have in the last year put up some
new type bat boxes on the edges and a few bird boxes to encourage pied
flycatchers and other birds in spring. See photographs below.
Hazel wood on site

Nest box on site.

New type bat box on site.

Of course this makes the site area more interesting when waiting for dusk and
the badger groups to come out. Dusk is a time for many changes and other
observations and in 2010 no doubt will have its store of natural history surprises.
Blackbirds calling their pink, pink pink song and alarm calls at dusk is a sign
that badgers are almost out or have been spotted by these birds though
sometimes it may be a passing fox or even a cat.
 THE BADGER BIOLOGY DATA.

The word Badger comes from the French becheur which means digger and
most people know that badgers can dig deep into a bank or hedgerow.
Most people in the UK and Ireland know what a badger looks like but I will add
some more data here for reference.
The body is blackish grey underneath with grey upper parts and has short legs
which are black in colour. When first seen it looks it has a heavy built body with
a short blunt tail that has a white tip and there is also a white fringe on the ears.
The snout is long with hairs light at the base and tip but black in the middle and
the black stripes along each side of the head which runs through the eyes and
may be used for the purpose as a warning colouration. The claws are long and
almost hooked but will also show up on the tracks left in soft mud.
In the many years watching badgers and finding dead ones by the roadside I
have come across other body colours such as one albino at Grey Abbey in Co.
Down NI, a dirty white coloured one that was not an albino and had normal eyes
at a place close to Tally in Wales and had died in a snare in 2004, five almost
black badgers over the years (melanistic) and two reddish brown types as
visitors to the research site in 2005 both together.
Looking down on a badger from a bank or from a tree the body looks wedge
shaped but with a very small head.

I have observed that there is a single moult each spring and once it starts it is
prolonged and at the research site is recorded in the first week of March and
through to late May or June. The new under-fur and hairs grow back again from
late August through to November making the badger look larger, now in fur or
pelt prime condition by December.
Any worthwhile badger clan of long standing will have a sett with 3 to ten large
entrance hole and at least five smaller holes that are well away from the main
sett but linked.

In the chambered den there will be bedding of hay, ferns, dry grasses and leaves.
Outside active setts there will be evidence of fresh soil and old bedding that has
been dragged out and close by well-worn paths leading away from the holes.
Latrines will be found but never close to the sett and when found they will be
open and not covered over. The droppings are dark coloured or black but a
muddy colour after eating many earth worms and can be missed on a woodland
floor if there are many leaves. There is always a path leading to or close to a
latrine and it is here that much of the good research work on diet can take place
if samples are taken. I suggest seasonal sampling of droppings but monthly
samples taken tend to give a much better picture of badger diet.

Badger path latrine cub

Badger tracks can be found in soft soil, mud and snow which I show below.

There are of course other badger signs to look for

if you know what you are looking for such as scratching posts, rock scratch
marks, and bees nests dug out.

Badger tracks will show 5 toes, broad pad, and heel marks show up better in
mud or snow.
We know the type of habitat badgers like and this could be gardens, banks,
woods, railway banks, dry quarries with large rocks and hedgerows. I have
found badger homes on common and moorlands, under garden sheds and once
inside an old combine harvester in a field.

The badger is mainly nocturnal, does not hibernate and in late spring will come
out before dusk, even if it is a bright sunny evening. In winter when the weather
is very cold and wet or during days of snow they will move into the deeper part
of the sett away from the cold.

DIET.
I am still researching diet from many badger areas but in my research
area over the years I have listed the diet I found badgers like.
Earthworms, beetles and woodlice, bees and honey as well as their grubs, wasps
and their larva, birds eggs of ground nesting species, sometimes ground roosting
birds, a fair amount of carrion and more so dead lambs in spring, in winter any
carrion found will be eaten, all voles, young rabbits that they dig down for, moles
Hedgehogs and I found will eat more meat in Spring than in winter.
From late summer will eat cereals, barley, corn and wheat when it can, all types
of fruit. My notes and research suggest that the badgers in the research area
once they left the sett area would forage in summer for up to seven hours and in
Autumn this has been expanded to 9 hours. In winter the feeding times is much
shorter.
I will be dealing with the breeding biology of badgers in part two of this research
and also the second part of badger biology, the internal kind.
The lifespan for most badgers is short, 10 years> for adults and with cubs 50%>
die in their first year from a number of factors. Adult mortality each year is
around 30%> and this did show that males were high risk more so than sows.

SEE PART TWO. FOR BREEDING AND INTERNAL BIOLOGY.

Ronnie Carleton 2012

 BADGER
RESEARCH PART
2
Ronnie Carleton
2012 is going to be a bad year for some badger
groups in the UK due to culls that will take
place. It is also going to be a bad year for some
cattle farmers due to outbreaks of TB in their
animals and a major loss to them.
Of course there will be protests, some may be
violent by the Animal Rights groups but this
violence or threats with not come within such
groups who protest peacefully but high jacked
by some thugs who know as much about
badgers, and farmers as my big toe knows about
snipe shooting.
Violent protests against culls or threats made to
some farmers is not the way to go because
everyone has to work together of finding out a
CODEX WILDLIFE better way to rid areas of Bovine TB but if we
FORENSICS take the word Bovine out and keep TB we are
already on the right track.
Ronnie Carleton 2012
 BADGER RESEARCH PART TWO 2012

One of the main reasons why a badger cull will not work is that there is a
high population of badgers across the UK and badger dispersal in the
autumn as well as badger sett disturbance.
We still have the old mentality of give a dog a bad names and it has to
be true or during World War Two if he or she is German they have to
be Nazis. The badger of course has that same mentality directed
against it; if its a badger it must carry and have Bovine TB
Such views get us nowhere of course when it comes down to wildlife
and farming research because it means that minds are already made up
and the cull victim is guilty as charged and bugger the jury or the
research.
When I said that the badger populations are high in the UK this is fact
true and a cull therefore is a waste of time of badgers that may or may
not have TB.
The badger distribution maps below confirms this;
As one can see there are very few areas without badger records (White)
yet my research did show in the white areas Bovine TB has been
reported and even up to 2011. So in these white areas why was TB
found in some cattle?
Because too much focus has been on the badger other vector mammals
have been ignored as carriers of Bovine TB such as;
Sheep, other cattle, deer species, dogs and cats, and foxes.

Deer and foxes if they are carrying bovine TB will cover a larger land
mass than a badger population and a single fox in a night can go a long
distance across fields where cattle and sheep graze.
Fox hunting with dogs therefore and in my opinion, adds to the real risk
of spreading Bovine TB not just by the hunted fox that will do its best to
escape the hounds but also by the hounds and possibly horses of the
Hunt.
So if we keep in mind that other mammals in the countryside could be
and more than likely are TB vectors then what is the point of a badger
cull in an area? Some of the issue I have outlined below;

Pet Issues
Can my pet get bovine TB?
Dogs, cats and horses can be infected with bovine TB, but the risk is
very low. Actually, dogs and cats are more likely to be infected by
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, or human TB, through exposure to their
human family members who have the disease; or by Mycobacterium
avium, or avian (bird) TB, from eating infected birds. These forms of TB
are caused by different species of bacteria, but the symptoms and
effects of the diseases are similar.

What is Bovine Tuberculosis?

Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is a disease caused by the bacterium
Mycobacterium bovis. In the U.K., the disease is found primarily in
cattle, captive cervidae (deer and elk), and goats, but can affect any
warm-blooded animal, including humans.

My research from the US source states; In June 1998, bovine TB was

confirmed in a beef cow in Alpena County. Since that time the disease
has been confirmed in multiple cattle herds in Michigan. Bovine TB has
also been detected in numerous captive and wild deer as well as wild
carnivores such as coyote and bobcat, and in one case a domestic
outdoor cat.

How Bovine TB is Spread

Bovine tuberculosis is most commonly spread through respiration.
Invisible droplets (aerosols) containing TB bacteria may be exhaled or
coughed out by infected animals and then inhaled by animals or
humans.

Animals who come in close contact with infected wild deer on pasture,
or those kept in close contact with other infected animals in enclosed
areas like barns, are at greatest risk for exposure to bovine TB.

Livestock and deer may also infect each other when they share and
ingest water or feed that has been contaminated with saliva and other
discharges from infected animals.

Animals and humans can contract bovine TB when they drink

unpasteurized milk from infected cows, or consume raw or undercooked
meat from infected animals. Horses very rarely contract TB. In cases
where horses have contracted bovine TB, they were most likely kept in
close contact with infected cattle over a long period of time. Cats also
rarely contract bovine TB, but when they do the most likely source is
from drinking unpasteurized milk from infected cows or eating from
carcasses or gut piles of animals infected deer. Dogs are most likely to
contract bovine TB from ingesting carcasses or gut piles of animals
infected by the disease also, but cases of bovine TB in dogs are also
rare. Foxes feed on carrion as well and any infected meat is a high risk

Symptoms of Bovine TB
Dogs, cats and horses infected by any form of tuberculosis may not
show any outward signs of illness, or they may exhibit weight loss and a
gradual decline in general health.

If the disease was contracted by breathing in the bacterium, symptoms

could include shortness of breath, cough and other symptoms of lung
disease.

When contracted by ingesting unpasteurized milk or raw meat from an

infected animal, as would be the case with dogs and cats, the disease
would affect the animal's digestive tract. TB lesions may be found in any
organ or body cavity of diseased animals.

Testing for the Disease

There is a live test for tuberculosis in dogs, but it is not very reliable.
There are no live tests currently available for diagnosing tuberculosis in
cats or horses. Infection is usually determined through laboratory tests
after the animal has died. There are currently no preventative bovine TB
vaccines for animals.

How to Reduce the Risk of Exposure

The most effective way to reduce the risk of TB exposure in humans and
domestic animals is to eliminate the disease in livestock and wildlife.

Humans, cats and other animals should not drink raw, unpasteurized
milk; and cats and dogs should not be allowed to ingest possibly
infected carcasses.

Dogs and cats should not be allowed to roam freely where they could
feed on carcasses of dead animals. If you have cattle, goats, bison or
captive cervidae, your entire herd should be tested for TB by an
accredited veterinarian, to make sure the disease is not present in your
herd.

I have placed some research from the WHO for reference below;

Tuberculosis (TB), one of the most widespread infectious diseases, is

the leading cause of death due to a single infectious agent among adults
in the world. Mycobacterium tuberculosis is the most common cause of
human TB, but an unknown proportion of cases are due to M. bovis (1).
In industrialized countries, animal TB control and elimination programs,
together with milk pasteurization, have drastically reduced the incidence
of disease caused by M. bovis in both cattle and humans. In developing
countries, however, animal TB is widely distributed, control measures
are not applied or are applied sporadically, and pasteurization is rarely
practiced. The direct correlation between M. bovis infection in cattle and
disease in the human population has been well documented in
industrialized countries. Whereas little information is available from
developing countries (2,3), risk factors for M. bovis in both animals and
humans are present in the tropics.
TB is a major opportunistic infection in HIV-infected persons (4). The
vast majority of people carrying this dual infection live in developing
countries; however, dual HIV and M. bovis infection has been reported
in industrialized countries (5-11). The epidemic of HIV infection in
developing countries, particularly countries in which M. bovis infection
is present in animals and the conditions favour zoonotic transmission,
could make zoonotic TB a serious public health threat to persons at risk
(3,12-14).
We summarize available epidemiologic information on TB and zoonotic
TB, examine risk factors that can influence the occurrence of zoonotic
TB in developing countries, and describe the most recent TB activities
of the World Health Organization (WHO) (15-18).
Human TB: Global Situation and Trends
The global incidence of TB is greatly underestimated. In 1995, 3.3 million
cases were reported to the Global Tuberculosis Programme of WHO,
whereas a more likely number is 8.8 million. Of the reported cases, 62%
occurred in the Southeast Asian and Western Pacific regions, 16% in
sub-Saharan Africa, and 7% to 8% in each of the regions of the
Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, and Europe. Many countries,
especially those with few resources, are unable to report all TB cases
because of difficulties in identifying suspected cases, establishing a
diagnosis, and recording and reporting cases.

In 1995, an estimated 8.8 million new TB cases occurred 5.5 million

(62%) in the Southeast Asian and Western Pacific regions and 1.5
million (17%) in sub-Saharan Africa. The annual global incidence is
predicted to increase to 10.2 million by the year 2000, an increase of
36% from 1990. Southeast Asia, Western Pacific regions, and sub-
Saharan Africa will account for 81% of these new cases (Table 1). For
1990 to 1999, in the absence of effective control, global TB incidence
and deaths will reach 88 million and 30 million, respectively (19); 70% of
the new cases will occur in patients 15 to 59 years of age, the most
economically productive segment of the population.
As a result of the HIV epidemic, the crude incidence rate of TB is
expected to increase in sub-Saharan Africa from 191 cases per 100,000
in 1990 to 293 in 2000. However, the total number of new cases will
double by the year 2000. Because of the HIV epidemic, the decline of the
crude incidence rate in the Southeast Asian and Central and South
American regions is expected to be slower than in previous years. In
industrialized countries, a small increase in crude incidence rate and
total cases is expected as the result of immigration from countries with
a high prevalence of dual HIV and TB infection.

The worldwide incidence of HIV-attributable TB cases is estimated to

increase from 315,000 (4% of the total TB cases) in 1990 to 1.4 million
(14% of the total TB cases) by the year 2000. In 2000, approximately 40%
of these HIV-attributable cases will occur in sub-Saharan Africa and 40%
in Southeast Asia. Ten percent of the total number of TB cases expected
during 1990 to 1999 are estimated to be attributable to HIV infection.

While demographic factors, such as population growth and changes in

population structure, will largely account for the expected increase in
TB incidence worldwide, the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa will
have a greater role than demographic factors.

By the year 2000, 3.5 million persons will be dying of TB annually, an

increase of 39% from 1990. In Southeast Asia alone, 1.4 million deaths
will occur annually. During 1990 to 1999, an estimated 30 million will die
of TB, with 9.7% of the cases attributable to HIV infection. M.
tuberculosis will be largely responsible for the new TB cases and
deaths, but an unknown, and potentially important, proportion will be
caused by M. bovis.
Bovine TB in Developing Countries
Although prevalence data on animal TB in developing countries are
generally scarce, information on bovine TB occurrence and control
measures exists (20,21).
Africa
Figure 1

Figure 1. Bovine tuberculosis occurrence, Africa (21).

Of 55 African countries, 25 reported sporadic/low occurrence of bovine
TB; six reported enzootic disease; two, Malawi and Mali, were described
as having a high occurrence; four did not report the disease; and the
remaining 18 countries did not have data (Figure 1).
Figure 2

Figure 2. Control measures for bovine tuberculosis based on test-and-

slaughter policy and disease notification, Africa (21).
Of all nations in Africa, only seven apply disease control measures as
part of a test-and-slaughter policy and consider bovine TB a notifiable
disease; the remaining 48 control the disease inadequately or not at all
(Figure 2). Almost 15% of the cattle population are found in countries
where bovine TB is notifiable and a test-and-slaughter policy is used.
Thus, approximately 85% of the cattle and 82% of the human population
of Africa are in areas where bovine TB is either partly controlled or not
controlled at all.
Asia
Figure 3

Figure 3. Bovine tuberculosis occurrence, Asia (21).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Control measures for bovine tuberculosis based on test-and-

slaughter policy and disease notification, Asia (21).
Of 36 Asian nations, 16 reported a sporadic/low occurrence of bovine
TB, and one (Bahrain) described the disease as enzootic; ten did not
report bovine TB; and the remaining nine did not have data (Figure 3).
Within the Asian region, seven countries apply disease control
measures as part of a test-and-slaughter policy and consider bovine TB
notifiable. In the remaining 29 countries, bovine TB is partly controlled
or not controlled at all (Figure 4 ).
Of the total Asian cattle and buffalo populations, 6% and less than 1%,
respectively, are found in countries where bovine TB is notifiable and a
test-and-slaughter policy is used; 94% of the cattle and more than 99%
of the buffalo populations in Asia are either only partly controlled for
bovine TB or not controlled at all. Thus, 94% of the human population
lives in countries where cattle and buffaloes undergo no control or only
limited control for bovine TB.

Latin American and Caribbean Countries

Figure 5
Figure 5. Bovine tuberculosis occurrence, Latin America and the
Caribbean (21).
Of 34 Latin American and Caribbean countries, 12 reported bovine TB as
sporadic/low occurrence, seven reported it as enzootic, and one
(Dominican Republic) described occurrence as high. Twelve countries
did not report bovine TB. No data were available for the remaining two
countries (Figure 5 ).
Figure 6

Figure 6. Control measures for bovine tuberculosis based on test-and-

slaughter policy and disease notification, Latin America and the
Caribbean (21).
In the entire region, 12 countries apply disease control measures as part
of a test-and-slaughter policy and consider bovine TB a notifiable
disease. In the remaining 22 nations, the disease is partly controlled or
not controlled at all (Figure 6 ). The regional prevalence of bovine TB
has been estimated at 1% and higher in 67% of the total cattle
population and 0.1% to 0.9% in a further 7%; the remaining 26% are free
of the disease or are approaching the point of elimination (22).
Of the total Latin American and Caribbean cattle population, almost 76%
is in countries where bovine TB is notifiable and a test-and-slaughter
policy is used. Thus, approximately 24% of the cattle population in this
region is either only partly controlled for bovine TB or not controlled at
all. It is also estimated that 60% of the human population live in
countries where cattle undergo no control or only limited control for
bovine TB.

Zoonotic TB in Humans
TB caused by M. bovis is clinically indistinguishable from TB caused
byM. tuberculosis. In countries where bovine TB is uncontrolled, most
human cases occur in young persons and result from drinking or
handling contaminated milk; cervical lymphadenopathy, intestinal
lesions, chronic skin TB (lupus vulgaris), and other nonpulmonary
forms are particularly common. Such cases may, however, also be
caused by M. tuberculosis. Little is known of the relative frequency with
which M. bovis causes nonpulmonary TB in developing nations because
of limited laboratory facilities for the culture and typing of tubercle
bacilli.
Agricultural workers may acquire the disease by inhaling cough spray
from infected cattle; they develop typical pulmonary TB. Such patients
may infect cattle, but evidence for human-to-human transmission is
limited and anecdotal.

In regions where bovine TB has been largely eliminated, a few residual

cases occur among elderly persons as a result of the reactivation of
dormant lesions. These are fewer than 1% of all TB cases. Surveys in
the United States, Scandinavia, and South England have shown that
approximately half of these postprimary cases are pulmonary, a quarter
involve the genitourinary tract (a rare occurrence in primary disease),
and the remainder involve other nonpulmonary sites, notably cervical
lymph nodes (23). In the same regions, approximately 10% of cases
caused by M. tuberculosis are nonpulmonary, although, for reasons that
are not clear, the incidence is higher, approximately 20%, in ethnic
minority populations.
Information on human disease due to M. bovis in developed and
developing countries is scarce. From a review of a number of zoonotic
tuberculosis studies, published between 1954 and 1970 and carried out
in various countries around the world, it was estimated that the
proportion of human cases due to M. bovis acccounted for 3.1% of all
forms of tuberculosis: 2.1% of pulmonary forms and 9.4% of
extrapulmonary forms (24). Table 2 summarizes the findings of more
recent reports of TB caused by M. bovis in industrialized countries.
Human disease caused by M. bovis has been confirmed in African
countries. In an investigation by two Egyptian health centers, the
proportions of sputum-positive TB patients infected with M. bovis,
recorded during three observations, were 0.4%, 6.4%, and 5.4%(33). In
another study in Egypt, nine of 20 randomly selected patients with TB
peritonitis were infected with M. bovis, and the remaining withM.
tuberculosis (34).
Isolation of M. bovis from sputum samples of patients with pulmonary
TB has also been reported from Nigeria. Of 102 M. tuberculosiscomplex
isolates, 4 (3.9%) were M. bovis (35). Another study in Nigeria reported
that one of 10 mycobacteria isolated from sputum-positive cultures
was M. bovis (36).
In a Zaire study, M. bovis was isolated from gastric secretions in two of
five patients with pulmonary TB (37). In the same study, the prevalence
of the disease in local cattle was approximately 8% by tuberculin testing
and isolation of M. bovis.
In a recent investigation in Tanzania, seven of 19 lymph node biopsies
from suspected extrapulmonary TB patients were infected with M.
tuberculosis and four with M. bovis (14). No mycobacteria were cultured
from the remaining eight (Table 3). Although the number of samples was
low, the high proportion (36%) of M. bovis isolates is of serious concern.
In an epidemiologic study in Zambia (38), an association between
tuberculin-positive cattle and human TB was found. Households that
reported a TB case within the previous 12 months were approximately
seven times more likely to own herds containing tuberculin-positive
cattle (odds ratio = 7.6; p = 0.004). Although this could be explained by
zoonotic TB transmission, other factors such as transient sensitivity to
tuberculin of cattle exposed to TB patients and coincidental
environmental factors favoring both human clinical TB and sensitivity to
bovine tuberculin should also be considered.
In Latin America, a conservative estimate would be that 2% of the total
pulmonary TB cases and 8% of extrapulmonary TB cases are caused
by M. bovis. These cases would therefore account for 7,000 new TB
cases per year, a rate of nearly 2 per 100,000 inhabitants. From a
nationwide study in Argentina during 1982 to 1984, 36 (0.47%) of 7,672
mycobacteria cultured from sputum samples were M. bovis (39).
However, in another study in Santa Fe province (where most of the dairy
cattle industry is concentrated) during 1984 to 1989, M. bovis caused
0.7% to 6.2% of TB cases (40).
Very limited data on the zoonotic aspects of M. bovis are available from
Asian countries. However, cases of TB caused by M. bovis were not
reported in early investigations in India (41).
Epidemiology
Much information on the epidemiologic patterns of zoonotic TB has
been obtained in this century from industrialized countries. However,
some striking epidemiologic differences related to both animal and
human populations in developing countries require particular attention.

Risk Factors: Animal Population

Animal reservoirs. The widespread distribution of M. bovis in farm and
wild animal populations represents a large reservoir of this
microorganism. The spread of the infection from affected to susceptible
animals in both industrialized and developing countries is most likely to
occur when wild and domesticated animals share pasture or
territory (42). Well-documented examples of such spread include
infection in badgers (Meles meles) in the United Kingdom and possums
(Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand. Wild animal TB represents a
permanent reservoir of infection and poses a serious threat to control
and elimination programs.
Figure 7

Figure 7. Cow milk production by region (43).

Milk production and animal husbandry. Milk production has increased in
most developing countries as a consequence of greater demand for milk
for human consumption (43; Figure 7). This increased demand for
milkestimated at 2.5% per year for 1970 to 1988 for sub-Saharan
Africa (44) led to increases in the number of productive animals and milk
imports and intensification of animal production through the
introduction of more productive exotic breeds.
Although the prevalence of the disease within a country varies from area
to area, the highest incidence of bovine TB is generally observed where
intensive dairy production is most common, notably in the milksheds of
larger cities (1). This problem is exacerbated where there is inadequate
veterinary supervision, as is the case in most developing countries. In
addition, in some industrialized countries such as the United States,
where bovine TB is close to elimination, large dairy herds (i.e., 5,000 or
more cows) that are crowded together represent the main source of
infection (45).
In developing countries, bovine TB infects a higher proportion of exotic
dairy breeds (Bos taurus) than indigenous zebu cattle (Bos indicus) and
crossbred beef cattle (1). However, under intensive feedlot conditions, a
death rate of 60% and depression of growth have been found in
tuberculous zebu cattle (46). In those areas where extensive
management is more common, animal crowding (e.g., near watering
ponds, dip tanks, markets, and corrals) still plays a major role in the
spread of the disease.
Control measures and programs. The basic strategies required for
control and elimination of bovine TB are well known and well
defined (47). However, because of financial constraints, scarcity of
trained professionals, lack of political will, as well as the
underestimation of the importance of zoonotic TB in both the animal and
public health sectors by national governments and donor agencies,
control measures are not applied or are applied inadequately in most
developing countries.
Successful conduct of a test-and-slaughter policy requires sustained
cooperation of national and private veterinary services, meat inspectors,
and farmers, as well as adequate compensation for services rendered.
Only a few developing countries can adhere to these requirements.

In addition, bovine TB does not often justify the emergency measures

required for other zoonotic diseases (e.g., Rinderpest, East Coast fever,
and foot and mouth disease). The full economic implications of zoonotic
TB are, however, overlooked in many developing nations where the
overall impact of the disease on human health and animal production
needs to be assessed. According to recent estimates, annual economic
loss to bovine TB in Argentina is approximately 63 million US
dollars (48). In a study recently conducted in Turkey, the estimated
socioeconomic impact of bovine TB to both the agriculture and health
sectors was approximately 15 to 59 million US dollars per year (49).
Several Latin American countries, through agreements between
governments and cattle owners associations, have made the decision to
control and eliminate bovine TB. Where foot and mouth disease has
been eliminated, bovine TB and other existing infections such as
brucellosis become important because of their impact on the meat and
live animal export trade. Bovine TB and brucellosis also limit the
development of the dairy industry and its expansion at the regional
level.

Risk Factors: Human Population

Close physical contact
Close physical contact between humans and potentially infected
animals is present in some communities, especially in developing
regions. For example, in many African countries cattle are an integral
part of human social life; they represent wealth and are at the center of
many events and, therefore, gatherings. In addition, with 65% of African,
70% of Asian, and 26% of Latin American and Caribbean populations
working in agriculture, a significant proportion of the population of
these regions may be at risk for bovine TB.

Food hygiene practices

Consumption of milk contaminated by M. bovis has long been regarded
as the principal mode of TB transmission from animals to humans (1). In
regions where bovine TB is common and uncontrolled, milkborne
infection is the principal cause of cervical lymphadenopathy (scrofula)
and abdominal and other forms of nonpulmonary TB. Although proper
food hygiene practices could play a major role in controlling these
forms of TB, such practices are often difficult to institute in developing
countries.
In all countries of sub-Saharan Africa, there is active competition
between large-scale, often state-run, processing and marketing
enterprises and the informal sector. The informal sector can ignore
standards of hygiene and quality, and producers often sell directly to
the final consumers. In addition, an estimated 90% of the total milk
produced is consumed fresh or soured (44). Although it has been stated
that Africans generally boil milk and that the souring process
destroys M. bovis (44), other sources strongly contradict these
statements (39). M. bovis was isolated from seven (2.9%) of 241 samples
of raw milk in Ethiopia (17). Both M. bovis and M. tuberculosis have also
been found in milk samples in Nigeria (36) and Egypt (34). Thus, serious
public health implications of potentially contaminated milk and milk
products should not be underestimated.
HIV/AIDS
According to recent WHO global estimates, of the 9.4 million people
infected with both HIV and TB in mid-1996, 6.6 million (70%) live in sub-
Saharan Africa (4). The greatest impact of HIV infection on TB is in
populations with a high prevalence of TB infection among young adults.
The occurrence of both infections in one person makes TB infection
very likely to progress to active disease.
In many developing countries, TB is the most frequent opportunistic
disease associated with HIV infection. HIV seroprevalence rates greater
than 60% have been found in TB patients in various African
countries (4). Persons infected with both pathogens have an annual risk
of progression to active TB of 5% to 15%, depending on their level of
immunosuppression; approximately 10% of non-HIV infected persons
newly infected with TB become ill at some time during their lives. In the
remaining 90%, effective host defenses prevent progression from
infection to disease.
TB cases due to M. bovis in HIV-positive persons also resemble disease
caused by M. tuberculosis. Thus, they manifest as pulmonary disease,
lymphadenopathy, or, in the more profoundly immunosuppressed,
disseminated disease.
M. bovis has been isolated from HIV-infected persons in industrialized
countries. In France, M. bovis infection accounted for 1.6% of TB cases
in HIV-positive patients. All isolated strains were resistant to
isoniazid (7). Taking into consideration the intrinsic resistance of M.
bovis to pyrazinamide, two of the first-line anti-TB drugs were not
effective. WHO-recommended standard treatment for new TB cases
includes, in the initial phase, isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and
streptomycin or ethambutol. In situations of high primary resistance to
isoniazid and streptomycin, the intrinsic resistance of M. bovis to
pyrazinamide may severely limit the efficacy of treatment of TB caused
by M. bovis.
In a Paris hospital, a source patient with pulmonary TB due to a
multidrug-resistant strain of M. bovis led to active disease in five
patients. Disease occurred 3 to 10 months after infection (10). This
observation led to three concerns: 1) human-to-human M.
bovis transmission leading to overt disease, 2) a short interval between
infection and overt disease, and 3) disseminated multidrug-resistant M.
bovis.
In another study, conducted in San Diego, California, one of 24 adults
with pulmonary TB and 11 of 24 adults with nonpulmonary TB due to M.
bovis had AIDS. One of 25 children, a 16-year-old boy with abdominal
TB, was also HIV-positive (9).
It is commonly believed that M. bovis is less virulent than M.
tuberculosis in humans and therefore less likely to lead to overt
postprimary disease and that human-to-human transmission leading to
infectious disease is rare. However, if the apparent difference in
virulence is the result of differences in responsiveness of the host
defense mechanisms, HIV-induced immunosuppression could well
lower host defenses leading to overt disease after infection.
Surveillance of TB due to M. bovis
The use of direct smear microscopy as the only method for diagnosis of
suspected TB, although an essential requirement of any national TB
program, could partly explain the relatively low notification rate of
disease caused by M. bovis in developing countries. Direct smear
microscopy does not permit differentiation between species of the M.
tuberculosis complex; in addition, culture and speciation are often not
carried out, and even when culture facilities are available, M.
bovis grows poorly in standard Lwenstein-Jensen medium, one of the
most widely used culture media (50). In some countries, human disease
caused by M. bovis is merely reported as TB to avoid inquiries from
disease control agencies, which might generate problems of patient
confidentiality (2).
The collection of representative data on the incidence of TB due to M.
bovis from most laboratories in developing countries has additional
problems. For example, the location and coverage of laboratories are
often biased towards city populations; sputum specimens may
predominate, with relatively few specimens from extrapulmonary
lesions, particularly among children. Specimens from children with TB
are frequently negative on culture, and biopsies are difficult to take from
lesions.
Recent outbreaks of multidrug-resistant TB in some parts of the world
underscore the need for surveillance through wider application of
reliable culture and drug susceptibility tests.

Control Measures and Programs in Developing Countries

Bovine TB can be eliminated from a country or region by implementing a
test-and-slaughter policy, if no other reservoir host of infection exists.
While the test-and-slaughter policy is likely to remain the backbone of
national elimination bovine TB programs, the policy has numerous
constraints in developing countries. Alternative strategies (e.g.,
programs based on slaughterhouse surveillance and traceback of
tuberculous animals to herds of origin) may be technically and
economically more appropriate in these countries.

Measures to prevent transmission of infection should be the primary

objective to be achieved with trained public health personnel, public
education, and proper hygienic practices. Test-and-slaughter programs
may be feasible and appropriate in areas with low bovine TB prevalence
and effective control of animal movement.

Animal Vaccination and Research Developments

Although not usually considered relevant to elimination programs in
livestock (47), vaccination of animals against TB would be a viable
strategy in two disease control situations: in domesticated animals in
developing countries and in wildlife and feral reservoirs of disease in
industrialized countries where test-and-slaughter programs have failed
to achieve elimination of the disease.
Many issues need to be addressed before vaccination becomes a
realistic option for control of disease in cattle and other animals. First, a
highly effective vaccine needs to be developed. The results obtained
globally with bacillus Calmette-Gurin (BCG) have been suboptimal, and
efficacy has varied considerably from region to region (42,51). Secondly,
the delivery of the vaccine poses few problems in domesticated animals,
but it is fraught with difficulties in wild animals. Thirdly, vaccination may
compromise diagnostic tests. A vaccine that induces tuberculin
reactivity would invalidate the key diagnostic tool used in control
programs. Fourthly, short of performing lengthy and expansive field
studies, evaluation of the protective efficacy of a new vaccine will pose
serious difficulties. Traditionally, the guinea pig and mouse have been
used for this purpose, but the information gained has been of little
value. Recent work has, however, indicated that deer may well prove a
suitable mammal for evaluating new vaccines and optimum delivery
systems(52).
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and gamma-interferon tests may
prove to be more sensitive and specific than the tuberculin test and may
facilitate diagnostic procedures. Nucleic acid-based technology, notably
polymerase chain reaction and related methods, may provide more
rapid, sensitive, and specific diagnostic tools. Multicenter studies of the
applicability of these techniques to the diagnosis of human TB have,
however, shown that their sensitivity and specificity are not as high as
originally expected and that many problems need to be solved before
the techniques are introduced into routine laboratory practice (53).
Restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis (DNA fingerprinting)
could be useful in epidemiologic studies that trace the spread of disease
between cattle, other animals, and humans (54) or in the rapid
differentiation of M. bovis within the M. tuberculosis complex (55). The
use of these techniques is limited by resources in most developing
countries.
WHO and Zoonotic TB
The public health importance of animal TB was recognized early by
WHO, which in its 1950 report of the Expert Committee on
Tuberculosis (56) stated: "The committee recognizes the seriousness of
human infection with bovine tuberculosis in countries where the disease
in cattle is prevalent. There is the danger of transmission of infection by
direct contact between diseased cattle and farm workers and their
families, as well as from infected food products." Since then, TB in
animals has been controlled and almost eliminated in several
industrialized countries but in very few developing countries.
More recently, WHO has been involved in zoonotic TB through the
activities of the Division of Emerging and other Communicable Diseases
Surveillance and Control at WHO in Geneva (WHO/EMC) and the
Veterinary Public Health program of the WHO Regional Office for the
Americas, Pan American Health Organization (PAHO/HCV).

WHO/EMC has organized and coordinated a working group of experts

from countries worldwide (15-17). Their subjects are epidemiology,
public health aspects, control, and research on zoonotic TB. In addition,
a joint WHO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), and Office International des Epizooties (OIE) Consultation on
Animal Tuberculosis Vaccines was held to review current knowledge on
TB vaccine development for humans and animals and make
recommendations for animal TB vaccine research and development (57).
Promising results of cattle vaccination with low doses of BCG were
reported. It is also planned for field trial cattle vaccination to commence
early in 1998 in Madagascar in collaboration with national and
international research institutions, OIE and WHO. In the framework of
the working group activities, the guidelines for speciation within
the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (50) have been prepared to
respond to the growing need for reliable differentiation between M.
tuberculosis, M. africanum, and M. bovis and to promote and strengthen
surveillance.
A Plan of Action for the Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis in the
Americas (18) has been developed by PAHO in collaboration with
member countries of the region. PAHO/HCV, in cooperation with the Pan
American Institute for Food Protection and Zoonosis (INPPAZ), Buenos
Aires, Argentina, and other technical institutions (e.g., FAO), provides
technical support to the regional plan. PAHO/HCV activities train
specialists in diagnosis, reporting, surveillance systems, and quality
control of reagents, as well as supporting the planning and
implementation of national programs. INPPAZ acts as a reference center
for these activities. The first phase of the regional plan is expected to
lead, in the next 10 years, to the elimination of bovine TB from countries
with more advanced national programs. In the remaining countries, the
objectives will be to strengthen epidemiologic surveillance, defining
areas at risk and setting up control and elimination programs.
Conclusions
Although the epidemiology of bovine TB is well understood and
effective control and elimination strategies have been known for a long
time, the disease is still widely distributed and often neglected in most
developing countries. Its public health consequences, although well
documented from the past experiences of industrialized countries, have
scarcely been investigated and are still largely ignored in these regions.
Because of the animal and public health consequences of M.
bovis, disease surveillance programs in humans should be considered a
priority, especially in areas where risk factors are present. The increase
of TB in such areas calls for stronger intersectoral collaboration
between the medical and veterinary professions to assess and evaluate
the scale of the problem, mostly when zoonotic TB could represent a
significant risk, for example, in rural communities and in the workplace.
Industrialized countries, where the test-and-slaughter policies have not
completely eliminated infection in cattle because of wild animal
reservoirs, are now reconsidering wild animal vaccination. Any
vaccination research and development program should therefore also
take into account the possible application of vaccines to cattle,
particularly in developing countries.

In developing countries, where HIV and bovine TB are likely to be

common, particularly in young persons, the ability of HIV infection to
abrogate any host factors that prevent the progression of infection by M.
bovis to overt disease may lead to higher incidence and case-fatality
rates for human TB caused by this species and increased human-to-
human transmission of this disease. This should be of great concern in
those developing countries where bovine TB is present and measures to
control spread of infection are not applied or are applied inadequately.
Research is needed to determine when M. bovis is of zoonotic
importance and what the underlying mechanisms of transmission are.
Locally operative risk factors for zoonotic TB should therefore be
identified to determine persons at risk and develop appropriate control
measures. International cooperation in all aspects of zoonotic TB
remains essential in the fight against this disease.

In my opinion this goes to show that Bovine TB is for the most a

worldwide disease and therefore the risk of getting it in live-stock
including wildlife is proven with no badger populations in most of the
other countries but other vectors involved including humans.
Farmers and their families as well as legal and illegal immigrants are
also high risk vectors of this disease and because the number of illegal
immigrants into the UK and Ireland is not known in 2012 as well as the
legal ones that slipped through the TB net and screening.
Bovine TB in UK humans may now be much higher than really known
and therefore I recommend a screening programme of all children
before the age of 16 years and all adults with chest complaints for TB.
It is here and it is here to stay and those that have it and work in the
meat industry can pass it on to humans and meat products.
Dairy products like milk may now be a source of infection and that
includes fresh goats milk that has not been treated.
If I may also be bold and suggesting that some raw meat imports to the
UK from other countries that do not have strong TB and other disease
regulations in place, and that includes bush meat from Africa which is
brought into this country by some airline passengers is without doubt
high risk.
Some UK governmental officials may well try and dispute my findings
on contaminated meats but if you look at their records of not knowing
how many illegal immigrants are in the UK, how many people from India
or Africa who have TB and losing the data on the Bovine TB Data on
badger culls it is little wonder that very few people have much faith in
them when it comes to disease information in the UK because if the
truth be known many chest and lung infections today are being wrongly
diagnosed and named as something else for medical records.
Below for reference I have included data from the Health Protection
Agency.
This is only part of the data of TB in humans but as one can see TB in
humans is rising and not a badger in sight. To finish off this research I
wish to refer you to a very good research paper on BTB which I have
included below. Not only is it well researched but it gives one a time to
ponder before any more badger culls or other wildlife culls enter the
stage and drama of the Badger.
 Bovine TB
Time for a Rethink

Chronic and debilitating

Wrecking families
Putting people out of business
Destroying livelihoods
- the DISEASE or the POLICY?

2nd edition
 Rethink Bovine TB is an independent research group funded by people with an inter-
est in examining public policy as it affects agriculture, animal diseases, animal welfare
and the financial viability of farming.
Rethink Bovine TB gratefully acknowledges original research and evidence offered by
academic and industry experts and information and data provided by the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
We hope that this report will serve to stimulate discussion and bring Bovine TB policy,
essentially unchanged for many decades, rapidly into the twenty first century. We
look forward to and welcome comments and criticism from all who read it.
Please contact Michael Ritchie, Press Officer, on 0207 993 5404 or email:
farming@rethinkbtb.org with your comments and feedback.
For more information visit www.rethinkbtb.org

Main contributors:
Michael Ritchie
Sally Hall
Michael Griffiths
Yvette Brown
Linda Griffiths

Rethink Bovine TB would like to thank the large number of people who have provided
information or contributed comments and suggestions, which have been used in this
second edition.

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Summary

3. What is Bovine TB?

4. Current Bovine TB policy objectives

5. How the current policy is delivered

6. Why test and cull is not working

7. Rethink: there must be a better way

8. Conclusion

9. References and further information

Second edition published July 2011

With thanks to Lawrence Wright for cover photo

Great care has been taken to ensure accuracy of content based on the
information available but the authors do not accept responsibility or
liability for any errors or omissions.
1. Introduction
In this discussion paper we consider current Bovine TB policy
in England and Wales, and propose alternatives that we
believe to be both practical and cost effective.

We have drawn our evidence from a variety of sources, but

in particular from Defra (the Department for Environment
Food and Rural Affairs) and from earlier work by Professor
Paul Torgerson 18 and Professor David Torgerson 19.

Where numerical or statistical arguments are necessary to

show what is actually happening on farms, we have explained
the argument as clearly as possible. We have also explained
that some widely held views are supported only by statistical
correlation (open to many alternative explanations), rather
than any evidence of a physical link between effect and
presumed cause.

2. Summary
2.1 Human Health
In the UK, human infection with the bacterium responsible
for Bovine TB, Mycobacterium bovis, is almost non-existent,
principally because of pasteurisation of milk and cooking
of meat. Most of the few cases were contracted abroad or
before pasteurisation of milk.
2.2 Animal Health
Infected cattle have little probability of developing the
disease and seldom show symptoms during their (often
short) economic lives. The principal animal welfare
implication is not the disease but premature slaughter under
the current test and cull policy. The effect of the policy is
worse than the disease.
2.3 Current Policy
Defras stated reasons for the current policy, principally
protection of human health, exports and animal welfare, do
not stand examination.
The policy relies on a flawed diagnostic test that even Defra
describes as imperfect 11. It leaves potentially infected
animals in the herd, and falsely condemns large numbers of
healthy animals.
The policy is causing widespread losses and distress to
farmers, and is a burden on the taxpayer. After 60 years
of cattle testing and culling, further decades of compulsory
slaughter separate us from an uncertain chance of TB free
status. Defra admits the policy is failing and that the reasons
are not known.
2.4 The Solution
According to Defra cattle vaccination will be licensed
next year (2012). Only the EU prevents us from using
vaccination and from allowing farmers the freedom to
choose the most suitable means of Bovine TB control for
their circumstances.
Page 3
 Whatever aspect is considered - farming profit, cost
effectiveness for the taxpayer, animal welfare, human health,
conservation or food security - the current policy is a
resounding failure.

This discussion document proposes solutions.

3. What is Bovine TB?

Bovine TB is caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium bovis
(M. bovis). It is difficult to diagnose, particularly in the early
stages. The very rare clinical signs may include emaciation,
lethargy, weakness, anorexia, low-grade fever, pneumonia
with a chronic moist cough, lymph node enlargement and
visible or microscopic lesions in infected organs.

Any mammal can contract Bovine TB, but surprisingly

little is known about how it is spread, what makes animals
susceptible to it and how it develops in the host animal.

It is very unusual for humans to catch Bovine TB in the

UK. In 2009, for example, it accounted for only 0.5% or
about 45 of the 9,040 human cases of TB in the UK 1. Most
cases of TB in humans are caused by a different bacterium,
Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Virtually all the few human cases of Bovine TB are either

Transmission in older people who have reactivated old lesions acquired
before widespread pasteurisation of milk, or in people who
to humans is were infected overseas. Thus transmission to humans
actually taking place in the UK is negligible 2.
virtually zero
The test used for TB in humans is similar in mechanism
and function to the skin test used on cattle. Interestingly
humans who react to it are classed as immune unless signs
of disease can be detected, whereas cattle are classed as
reactors and slaughtered, whether symptoms exist or not.

In the case of cattle, most authorities on the subject

(including Defra) believe that Bovine TB is most likely to enter
previously uninfected areas as a result of cattle movement,
and then primarily spread between cattle in respiratory
secretions3.

There is some evidence of a statistical link between the

prevalence of Bovine TB infection in cattle and in badgers
but no direction or means of transmission has been
established with any certainty4. Possible explanations for
the statistical correlation include cross infection between
the species (either cattle to badger or badger to cattle) or a
locally occurring common risk factor, causing both species
to be independently susceptible. The matter is likely to
remain shrouded in uncertainty and controversy. Even less
is known about whether other domestic and wild mammal
species are implicated in cattle infection.

Even in areas where it is rife, most wild and domestic

animals fight off the disease. This is the natural and correct

Page 4
response of the immune system. A few animals may
succumb to infection and develop symptoms (i.e. become
ill).

The economic lifespan of cattle varies but, with the

exception of breeding stock, tends to be relatively short.
Following initial challenge by M. bovis bacteria, infection
may be held in a dormant state by the immune system
for many years or indefinitely. Hence the fact an animal
is a reactor does not mean it will go on to develop the
symptoms of having the disease Bovine TB, be infectious, or
become ill. It may simply have immunity.

4. Reasons for current Bovine TB policy

Every policy and action of government must have a reason.
Defra offers diverse reasons in its publications 5,6,7, the only
consistency being that they are significantly different in every
document. They attempt to justify many of these reasons
with circular, self-fulfilling arguments. We will consider
the version in Defras Bovine Tuberculosis Evidence Plan
2011/12 6.

Protect the health of the public and maintain public

confidence in the safety of products entering the
food chain.

This seems a powerful and compelling argument until the

evidence is considered. Defra and the Health Protection
Agency admit that the risk of humans catching Bovine Defras
TB from meat is negligible. So negligible that potentially
infected cattle slaughtered after failing a TB test, and arguments
cattle found at abattoirs to be infected, are sold for human
consumption (with any TB lesions, which happen to be visible, do not
removed).
stand up to
Defra and the Health Protection Agency admit
pasteurisation of milk kills M. bovis bacteria, removing any
examination
danger of infection. Raw milk is only sold from TB free
herds.

Protect and promote the health and welfare of animals.

Slaughtering animals because they might develop a disease

for which vaccination is possible is hardly conducive to
their welfare, particularly when the test and slaughter policy
relies, as we shall explain below, on an inaccurate, if not
dysfunctional test.

Meet our international (in particular EU) and

domestic legal commitments and maintain the UKs
reputation for safe and high quality food, and Maintain
productive and sustainable beef and dairy sectors
in England securing opportunities for international
trade and minimising environmental impacts.

Meeting legal commitments is not a reason for having those

legal commitments.
Page 5
 The UKs reputation for safe and high quality food is
not enhanced by a failed policy. The present policy is
doing nothing to make farming productive, rather the
opposite. How such a policy can be sustainable or minimize
environmental impacts is a complete mystery.

Trade with EU countries is often cited in this context. The

relevant EU provisions only affect export of live cattle, not
meat and dairy products. Since the BSE ban was lifted,
live cattle exports have never exceeded 3.3 million in
annual value 8. This controversial trade (which includes
large numbers of calves sold at low prices for rearing in
continental veal crates) is hardly worth over 100 million of
taxpayers money spent every year on Bovine TB control.

We need to reduce the cost of Bovine TB to farmers and

taxpayers. Ask any farmer what the cost of Bovine TB is
and he will say testing, culling and movement restrictions,
imposed by the present policy. A policy aimed at reducing
the cost would introduce better and cheaper ways of
managing and preventing disease, such as those we consider
in our conclusion.

We hold that not one of the diverse and ever changing

reasons put forward by Defra stands examination.

However, UK policy is ultimately driven by the EU requiring

member states to eradicate Bovine TB and laying down
the precise means to be used, along with prohibition of
vaccination 9.

No specific reasons for EU Bovine TB policy can be found,

except those for the overall Community Animal Health Policy
which covers a multitude of diseases, including Bovine TB.
The reasons stated for the Community Animal Health Policy
The current 10
are similar to those used by Defra in respect of Bovine TB,
Bovine TB and just as irrelevant to Bovine TB.

policy is Not one of the reasons for EU policy stands examination

either.
without
For any government to intervene in private or business
foundation affairs, and in particular to take and kill livestock, there must
be a sound justification rooted in the common good. No
such justification has been advanced.

The current Bovine TB policy is without foundation.

5. How current policy is delivered.

Under the current UK test and cull policy, cattle are tested
at intervals determined by risk of infection. Those that fail
the test are slaughtered and severe restrictions on cattle
movement are placed on the farm.

In the test primarily used in the UK, a small amount of

Page 6
tuberculin (a sterile extract obtained from a culture of M.
bovis) is injected into the animal. A swelling will occur if the
animal has previously been challenged by, and the immune
system has reacted to, tuberculosis bacteria.

However, reactions of the animals immune system to

other types of mycobacteria can also cause the swelling. To
reduce the number of false diagnoses this would lead to,
a preparation of M. avian, the avian form of tuberculosis,
is injected nearby. M. avian is widely present in the
environment. It is not harmful to cattle, although their
immune system reacts to it.

The swellings are compared after 72 hours. Statistical

studies, rather than an understanding of the underlying
biological mechanism, have indicated that if the M. bovis
swelling is significantly larger than the M. avian swelling, a
reaction to M. bovis has occurred. The animal is then deemed
to be a reactor and killed.

This test is known as the skin test (or more properly as

the single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin test).

A blood test, the gamma interferon test, is also used on

some occasions as an ancillary test. It evaluates the same
immune response but is conducted in the laboratory. There
are documented cases of wildly differing results from using The skin test is
the two tests on the same herd.
compromised
If an animal fails either the skin or blood tests it is
slaughtered. by three major
Serious concerns (some of which we will explain below) shortcomings
exist among scientists and farmers about the accuracy of
the tests, while Defra goes as far as to admit the tests are
imperfect11.

6. Why test and cull is not working.

After sixty painful and expensive years of testing and
slaughtering cattle, and an intervening period of relatively
few incidents of Bovine TB, we are again several decades
from any chance of official TB free status. As the Bovine TB
Advisory Group concluded in its final report to Defra 12;

Bovine TB has been a difficult and demanding

problem for many years. There are reasons for
believing that it can be controlled and finally
eradicated but this will require a long-term
commitment by all stakeholders and take at
least 20 years.

Can we afford the cost and will farmers tolerate another

20 years of movement restrictions, disruptive and inaccurate
testing and compulsory cattle culling?

Over the period 1998 - 2009 the number of new herd

incidents13 in Great Britain increased by 276%, and the

Page 7
 number of cattle consequently culled, by a staggering 477%.
Defra states that;

The causes of the long-term increase in bTB

in GB are not well understood as there are likely
to be many factors involved.14

In other words Defra does not know why there has

been a dramatic long term increase, or why Bovine TB
policy has failed.

To avoid confusion, we use the term official TB free status,

which correctly describes a state of very low incidence of
Bovine TB. This is the best the test and cull policy could
ever achieve. Defra uses the term eradication to mean
the same. However, eradication, used in a scientific or
veterinary context such as this, means extermination of
an infectious agent so that no further cases of the related
disease can occur. Only two diseases have ever been
eradicated; smallpox and rinderpest, the latter being a cattle
disease. Both were eradicated using vaccination.

The skin test is compromised by three major

shortcomings.
Thousands 1. False positives.
of cattle are According to Defra 11 the test falsely condemns only 1
in 1,000 cattle tested. (The specificity of the test). This
falsely makes the test sound accurate until what it really means
is realised.
condemned
Using Defras testing figures 15
(for 2009):
In England 4,899,144 tests were performed,
1 in 1,000 tests, 4,899 in those 4,899,144, will be false
reactors or false positives,
24,924 cattle were actually condemned as reactors,
4,899 or 1 in every 5 of those cattle will have been
incorrectly condemned.
In Wales 1,812,666 tests were performed,
1 in 1,000 tests, 1,812 in those 1,812,666, will be false
reactors or false positives,
10,117 cattle were actually condemned as reactors,
1,812 cattle, or 1 in every 6 of those cattle will have
been incorrectly condemned.
In Scotland 229,800 tests were performed,
1 in 1,000 tests, 229 in those 229,800, will be false
reactors or false positives,
323 cattle were actually condemned as reactors,
229 or a staggering 2 out of every 3 of those cattle
will have been incorrectly condemned.
The principle of this calculation has been confirmed by
Defra in a letter ref. RFI 3725 & RFI 3749 of 19 January
2011 17.
Not only are thousands of cattle being falsely

Page 8
 condemned, but as herd size increases, the chance of
a false positive in the herd increases. Thus the larger
the herd, the greater the chance that such a false
positive will be the sole cause of movement restrictions
and repeat testing on the entire farm, with all the
accompanying disruption, costs and anxiety to the
owner.
The gamma interferon blood test, used on some
occasions as an ancillary test, has a higher sensitivity,
thus showing less false negatives (see 2 below) but,
having a massively inferior specificity. It condemns an
even higher proportion of cattle as false positives.
2. False negatives.
According to Defra11 the skin test misses 1 in 5
cattle that it should identify as reactors. (This is
the sensitivity of the test). For every four reactors
slaughtered in the belief that they are or will become
infectious or infected, one more remains undetected
and potentially infectious in the herd or worse still,
moved to infect another herd or area. If one or more
reactors have been found in the herd, a further test is
done 60 days later and it may then detect the missed
reactors, or maybe not.
In many countries this shortcoming is recognized and
the skin test is used as a herd test. All animals in the
herd are tested individually as in Britain, but if a single
reactor is found, the entire herd is slaughtered and
restocking is delayed.
3. A functional test should detect cattle that have, or will
have, Bovine TB.
The skin test does not do this, it identifies animals that
have come into contact with M. bovis and mounted an
immune reaction - exactly what a healthy animal should Test and cull
do.
is not working
The latent infection that remains may in some of these
animals re-emerge as Bovine TB, but not in all. All are
slaughtered.
Only about one third of reactors show evidence of
infection at postmortem and can be listed as confirmed
reactors. Much of the compensation paid to farmers is
for healthy cattle that were unlikely to develop Bovine
TB, or would have been slaughtered in the normal
course of farm production long before any symptoms
developed.
The testing regime:
Condemns thousands of cattle in error.

Fails to detect a significant proportion of those

cattle that are infected.

Looks for the wrong thing.

Page 9
 Besides the shortcomings in the imperfect testing regime,
Bovine TB policy is having severe effects on farming. Healthy
cattle are being slaughtered and farmers are consequently
suffering unnecessarily. If Bovine TB itself was affecting farm
productivity, evidence would have emerged by now. It is not
easy for cattle to catch Bovine TB and clinical symptoms are
rarely seen on farms.

Testing requires unfamiliar and stressful handling of

cattle, compromising both animal welfare and human safety.
Compensation does not always cover the value of the
animals and certainly not the consequences of movement
restrictions and loss of critical breeding stock.

Defra, in its Bovine Tuberculosis Evidence Plan 2011/12 6

states, ... we also recognise that the current TB surveillance
and control regime in cattle (based on test and slaughter of
reactors) is not preventing the spread of TB to clean areas,
and that the incidence of disease in endemic areas
The current appears to be increasing. In other words Defra, to its
credit, recognises failure of the policy. Sadly Defra has not
policy has proposed cessation or a viable alternative.
failed The devastating effect of Bovine TB is not the effect of the
disease; it is the effect of the Bovine TB eradication policy.
This policy has failed, producing limited, if any, results and
causing severe human and animal welfare problems, at
enormous cost to the taxpayer.

The policy is not only ineffective, it is far worse than the

disease.

7. Rethink: there must be a better way

Whatever aspect is considered - farming profit, cost
effectiveness for the taxpayer, animal welfare, human health,
conservation or food security - the current policy is a
resounding failure.

No business (or rational person) would continue a policy

which had no good reason for existence and a 60 year
history of failure.

The criteria for a successful policy would be:

Protection of human health.

Protection of animal welfare.

Security of supply of good food from a prosperous

and financially self-sufficient farming industry.

Low or no cost to taxpayers.

Farms regain primary responsibility for animal

welfare, product safety and quality.

Page 10
What options exist?
1. Continuing with the current policy, even with marginal
changes, cannot be considered a serious option.

2. Drastically increased severity applied to the current

policy, along the lines of measures adopted in Australia
and the USA, might increase effectiveness:
There must be
Changing from culling of individual animals to
complete herd depopulation, dealing with wildlife a better way
reservoirs and delaying restocking of cattle.

Increased risk based and out of area movement

controls.

More frequent testing of cattle, and use of

alternative tests.

Clearly the political and financial cost of such measures

would be prohibitive and attainment of official TB free status
would still take decades to achieve.

3. Acceptance that Bovine TB is not a significant human

health risk in the UK and that farmers know best what
will work in their circumstances.

Farms would be free to choose to vaccinate cattle

and/or various degrees of compulsory vaccination
could be introduced.

Milk would continue to be pasteurised.

Inspection at abattoirs would continue.

Farms would be free to continue routine testing

and acquire herd TB free status or to choose
vaccinated status, in response to market demand
or farm preference.

Any animal showing actual symptoms of Bovine

TB would be tested and either slaughtered, or in
appropriate cases, could be isolated and treated.

Farmers would have the freedom to choose (within

guidelines) the most suitable means for Bovine TB
control in their circumstances. This is how most
animal health problems are successfully managed.

The principle objection to vaccination is that, according

to Defra (Options for vaccinating cattle against bovine
tuberculosis, June 2007 16); Not all vaccinated animals
would be protected from TB and therefore vaccination
alone will not be sufficient to demonstrate disease free
status without testing and allow trade in those animals.
This is a disingenuous argument, as use of the skin test to
demonstrate TB free status and select potentially infectious
cattle is subject to the same shortcoming.
Page 11
 Vaccines can be used for two complementary purposes -
to protect individuals or to protect populations. No vaccine
provides complete immunity to individuals, just a measure of
protection. If enough animals are vaccinated with a typical
vaccine it is near impossible for an epidemic to occur - this
is the principle of herd immunity which is central to the many
successful uses of vaccines to control epidemics.

8. Conclusion
We are suffering under a policy that has demonstrably failed,
at massive cost to farmers, to the taxpayer, and to animal
welfare. At best it will take several more decades of cattle
testing and slaughter to achieve official TB free status.

No sound reason exists for the test and cull policy.

A better way must be found.

When, as is the case with Bovine TB, no overriding public or

animal welfare interest exists, farmers are best left to take
responsibility for their own animals and business decisions.

Given the lack of real practical human health risk, we

propose that option 3 above should be adopted.

Farms would be free to choose to vaccinate

cattle and/or various degrees of compulsory
vaccination could be introduced.

Milk would continue to be pasteurised.

Inspection at abattoirs would continue.

Farms would be free to continue routine

testing and acquire herd TB free status or
to choose vaccinated status, in response to
market demand or farm preference.

Any animal showing actual symptoms

of Bovine TB would be tested and either
slaughtered, or in appropriate cases, could be
isolated and treated.

Farmers would have the freedom to choose

(within guidelines) the most suitable means
for Bovine TB control in their circumstances.
This is how most animal health problems are
successfully managed.

In addition to the savings to taxpayers, the saving to

farmers in stress, anxiety and loss of production would
be beyond calculation.

Page 12
9. Further information and references
Public health and bovine tuberculosis: whats all the fuss about? (by
Professors Paul R. Torgerson and David J. Torgerson), proposes that bTB
control in cattle is irrelevant as a public health policy. They provide evidence
to confirm that cattle-to-human transmission is negligible. They believe there
is little evidence for a positive cost benefit in terms of animal health of bTB
control. Such evidence is required; otherwise, there is little justification for the
large sums of public money spent on bTB control in the UK.

This report can be downloaded from www.rethinkbtb.org and by click-

ing the links on the references the relevant documents referred to below will be
displayed. (Note: Defra links are liable to change as they continually reorgan-
ise their web site).

An independent website, www.bovinetb.co.uk questions and debates existing

policy. It also
includes case studies which reveal the flaws of the existing tests and how the
policy is having an adverse effect on those involved.

Refs:
1. Tuberculosis in the UK: Annual report on tuberculosis surveillance in the UK, 2010.
London: Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections, October 2010, pages 7 and 17.
2. Professor Paul R Torgerson (co-author of Public health and bovine tuberculosis: whats all
the fuss about?), email 22/02/11 tells us that virtually all these cases are either in old people
who probably have reactivated old lesions that were acquired before there was
compulsory milk pasteurisation or immigrants who were infected overseas. Thus transmis-
sion to humans in the UK is virtually zero at the present time.
3 Gilbert et al, Nature 26 May 2005, Cattle movements and bovine tuberculosis in Great
Britain
Defra, What is Bovine TB
Comments by Tony Edwards, then Director of Animal Health Wales, Western Mail 23
June 2009.
4. Survey of Mycobacterium bovis infection in badgers found dead in Wales, January
2007, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, executive summary, para 1.7.
5. Defras Options for vaccinating cattle against bovine tuberculosis, page 10, para 2.1.
6. Defras Bovine TB Evidence Plan 2011/12.
7. Defras new web site on TB control
8. Freedom of information request on cattle export figures dated 9/2/11 and 10/2/11 from
Gardiner, Joanne (FFG-EKBES, Defra).
9. EU Directive 78/52/EEC of 13 December 1977 Chapter III Article 13b.
Also see: EU Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of 29 April 2004 Section IX Chapter I Para
4. EU Directive 64/432/EEC.
10. EU Community Animal Health Policy
11. Dealing with Bovine TB in your herd, Defra May 2008, Page 13.
12. Bovine Tuberculosis in England: Towards Eradication, Final Report of the Bovine TB
Advisory Group, April 2009, Page 4.
13. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/stats/county.htm
(taking 3 year averages for 1998-2000 and 2007-2009).
see also Key herd / animal statistics (by county):1998-2010
14. Options for vaccinating cattle against bovine tuberculosis, Defra, para 22.2.16, page 13.
15. Detailed year-end TB statistics (by region): 2009-2010
16. Options for vaccinating cattle against bovine tuberculosis, Defra, para E10, page 5.
17. Defra correspondence, specificity of the tuberculin skin test ref RFI 3725 & RFI 3749
of 19 January 2011.
18. Professor David Torgerson, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, England.
19. Professor Paul Torgerson, MRCVS. Division of Epidemiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, Univer-
sity of Zurich, Switzerland

Page 13
Bovine TB, Time for a Rethink, 2nd Edition

Published by:
RETHINK Bovine TB
Tel: 0207 993 5404
Email: farming@rethinkbtb.org
Web: www.rethinkbtb.org