Target TB: Eradication group thrashes out policy

Bovine TB policy in England has reached something of an impasse. The disease may be spreading at record levels, but policy-makers appear increasingly powerless to do anything about it.

The reason is a general reluctance – even within Defra – to impose significantly tighter cattle controls in the absence of wildlife controls.

In Wales, the need to tackle the disease in cattle and wildlife has been recognised. A pilot badger cull in north Pembrokeshire, announced last month, will be part of a package of measures that will also see a tightening of cattle controls and moves to improve biosecurity on farms.

A wildlife cull is not only seen in Wales as ‘necessary' in its own right in the fight to eradicate bTB, but also as a means of getting farmers support for tighter cattle controls.

But in England, there is no such trade off.

TB Eradication Group

The Independent Scientific Group (ISG) report that successfully persuaded Hilary Benn that culling badgers ‘could not meaningfully contribute' to tackling bTB also urged him to introduce tighter cattle controls.

Mr Benn, acutely aware of the ramifications of forcing such a policy on to farmers, decided to pass the decision on to the industry.

He proposed an industry-Defra ‘TB partnership group' to look at extra cattle controls. The industry boycotted it until it became the ‘TB Eradication Group', with a remit to also consider the merits of badger culling.

Made up of farmers, vets and Defra and Animal Health officials, its task is to develop a plan, to be submitted to Mr Benn, ‘for reducing the incidence of bovine TB from cattle in England and moving towards eventual eradication'.

It is simultaneously drawing up an eradication plan to submit to the European Commission.

Cattle controls

The group has already discussed various measures that could curb cattle-to-cattle spread. These include:

• Inconclusive reactors: The Welsh assembly has already moved to bring Wales into line with the EU rule requiring cattle to be culled once they show up as inconclusive reactors in two successive tests, rather than three as was previously the case. Andrew Biggs, a Devon vet who sits on the England group, said the group would ‘need to give this serious consideration' as it draws up its plan to put to Brussels.
• TB testing: The group is also considering how routine TB testing could be made more effective, for example, by more frequent and better targeted testing around the edges of hotspots. Mr Biggs said any changes would not necessarily mean overall increases in testing levels ‘as clearly the cost to the taxpayers and farmers had to be balanced against disease benefits'. “It is about testing more smartly rather than more testing. The edge areas are where disease is spreading most rapidly and we need to react to early signals rather than just waiting until it arrives, which is too late,” he said. Mr Biggs said the group was also looking at ‘closing loopholes' in the pre-movement testing regime, such as exempting cattle being taken to shows.
• Risk-based trading: Mr Biggs feels the group should also look at the issue of risk-based trading, a version of which already operates in Australia. The basic principle is that every farmer is placed in a risk category, based, for example, on location or time since last TB breakdown. Farmers are only allowed to buy in cattle from farmers in their own category or better to reduce the chances of bringing disease on to their farms.

The wildlife-cattle dilemma

However, the reality is that any changes made to cattle controls on the back of these discussions are likely to be relatively minor.

There is no appetite within the group for a major overhaul, according to Jan Rowe, a Gloucestershire farmer who brings painful first-hand experience of the disease to the group.

“The whole group, including the Defra people, have agreed that farmers are unlikely to accept a significant tightening of cattle-based measures unless it goes alongside significant addressing of the wildlife problem,” Mr Rowe said.

“We realise there is no point because this policy hasn't worked over the past five years.”

Mr Biggs said extra cattle controls could help, particularly in the edge areas, but stressed they can only bring ‘limited benefits' in the endemic areas ‘where, as was stated at the final ISG meeting, at least 40 per cent of infection is driven by badgers'.

Badger culling

The group's remit allows it to consider ‘any exceptional circumstances or new scientific evidence' relating to badger culling.

Last week, for example, it discussed the latest ‘post-trial analysis' of bTB incidence in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial areas with the scientists doing the work.

However, with Mr Benn adamant he has no intention of changing his decision, the group accepts there are no guarantees its advice on this issue will be listened to.

Mr Biggs said: “To develop a full and all-encompassing eradication plan, all facets of TB eradication must be at least on the table. However, the final decision on the content of the eradication plan clearly rests with the Secretary of State.”

Mr Rowe added the group was looking to produce a ‘credible eradication plan' that could set the framework for a new administration, if there was a change next year, even if the current Government was not interested in wildlife controls.

Vaccination

The group is setting little stall by vaccination as a means of addressing bTB spread in wildlife.

At last week's meeting it expressed concern at the way the announcement of next year's Injectable Badger Vaccine Deployment Project has been communicated by Defra.

It called for future communications to address ‘some of the misunderstandings' about the policy.

“It is not a ‘silver bullet',” the memo of the meeting said.

Mr Rowe summarised the group's stance. “We have a view vaccination is so long-term it can't possibly be part of a current eradication programme.”

EU plan

The group's eradication plan to the European Commission will be part of a GB or UK-wide plan, which will incorporate separate documents from Wales, Scotland and, possibly, Northern Ireland.

The first deadline is the end of April, the date by which framework plans need to be submitted.

For England that will be a summary of the past and present situation, where a cattle control-only policy is failing to stem the spread of disease. A more detailed eradication plan will then be submitted towards the end of the year, with possibly updated plans to follow in subsequent years.

Mr Rowe said the decision to get Brussels involved was partly driven by the fear of further industry-imposed trade sanctions on British cattle, following last year's ban by Dutch farmers after the discovery of a batch of bTB-infected cattle.

Mr Rowe stressed there was no immediate threat of formal sanctions from Brussels, but this prospect and further farmer-led bans could become ‘more of a reality' in future.

“That is a big worry, but this is really about getting some political leverage on our Government from Brussels.

“It is a way of saying: ‘Come and help us',” said Mr Rowe.

Have your say

Please do not complete the following form field for security reasons.

Name

E-mail

Comment