She says she wants to ‘protect the interests of the taxpayer during these difficult times’, yet no cost benefit analysis has been done regarding the financial benefit of the cull and maybe such resources would be better utilised in other areas, particularly if it really will achieve only a 6-9% reduction and for just a two year period. This seems to be poor value for money and will not help farmers, particularly if it has negative effects on the tourism and farming industries. Maybe she should organise an open public meeting so we can see just how people really feel about the issue.

Why isn’t WAG concentrating instead on introducing a vaccination programme for cattle? Or have too many resources gone into the badger/cattle link (and if culls proceed and don’t work, what species will be selected as the next scapegoat?).

I understand there is a BCG vaccine available now for cattle which offers reasonable protection and is particularly effective for calves. The existing testing regime could be phased out and restricted to high risk herds only. It would appear that the main reason for the reluctance to start a vaccination programme is vaccinated cattle would show up as positive reactors with the skin test – currently the only approved test for use in the EU (there are alternative tests available bit these are not approved for some reason). However, the skin test is not a perfect test (and yet the overall TB status off an area is based solely on the results of this test). It indicates that the animal has mounted an immune response capable of recognising M. bovis and does not conclude actual infection, so many cattle are being killed needlessly. It means that animals have been exposed to a bacterium that can cause TB at some point in their life (or have been vaccinated!).

Current EU regulations mean that vaccinated cattle cannot be exported to the rest of the EU, as current tests cannot distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals. In reality this does not matter for meat and dairy products as pasteurisaion and cooking kills the bacteria that causes bTB (lesioned cattle do go into the foodchain once affected areas have been removed). The only products at any risk would be those used in their raw state, where additional precautions would be needed. Many countries, where bTB is endemic or only partially controlled, export products to the UK.

The real reason for the existing eradication policy in the UK is to comply with EU regulations that insist on its countries achieving TB-free status. This is to protect the market for live exports of cattle. However, if one looks at the export figures for Great Britain over the last few years, it is difficult how such a decision can be justified in cost terms for the UK.

In 2006 89,567 cattle were exported with a value of £3,332,000
In 2007 85,487 cattle were exported with a value of £2,548,1457
In 2008 51.809 cattle were exported with a value of £1,457,000
In 2009 11.050 cattle were exported with a value of £152,000

The numbers and value is falling year-on-year and, even more surprising, is the fact that the value of this market is considerably less than the annual costs of the existing eradication policy for bTB. Surely this makes a vaccination programme for cattle viable and an appropriate case should be made to the EU in this respect? Of course it would need to be approved by the politicians, farming unions, veterinary professions and EU – and here we hit the stumbling blocks ….