Originally from: PoppaC
                        
This report was released in 1999 : http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showAbstract&doi=10.1046/j.1365–2664.1999.00418.x&area=production&prevSearch=authorsfield%3A%28Woodroffe%2CR%29

Journal of Applied Ecology
Volume 36 Issue 4 Page 494 – September 1999 doi:10.1046/j.1365–2664.1999.00418.x
 
 
Attempts to control tuberculosis in cattle by removing infected badgers: constraints imposed by live test sensitivity Rosie Woodroffe*, Simon D.W. Frost and Richard S. Clifton-Hadley
 
Summary

1. Bovine tuberculosis is a serious disease of cattle caused by the bacillus Mycobacterium bovis. In south-west England, badgers Meles meles sustain endemic M. bovis infection and almost certainly transmit the disease to cattle. When tuberculosis outbreaks have occurred in cattle, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) therefore culled badgers to try to avert further outbreaks.

2. To limit the number of badgers killed, MAFF has assessed a possible new strategy (the 'live test strategy') that used a serological test to identify and remove infected badgers. However, because the test correctly identified only 41% of truly infected badgers, individuals were pooled according to the setts at which they were sampled. All badgers were culled at setts where one or more seropositive animals were caught.

3. On average, 1·9 ± 1·4 (SD) badgers were sampled at each sett. Using a simple model, we show that this level of sampling still gives a low (24–37%) probability of detecting infection at a given sett.

4. Badger social groups typically occupy more than one sett. We allocated setts to social groups by using Dirichlet tessellations and field signs to predict territory borders. On average, 3·3 ± 2·8 badgers were sampled in each group. Our model shows that this increase in sample size gives probabilities of detecting M. bovis in truly infected groups of 43–62%, which is still likely to be unacceptably low.

5. Culling badgers according to the setts where they were trapped led to incomplete removal of social groups; some seronegative badgers were released in 61% of groups containing seropositive animals. As infection is clustered within groups, it is likely that some infected animals were released even though they tested seronegative. Incomplete removal might also cause social disruption that could accelerate the transmission of M. bovis between social groups.

6. We conclude that the live test strategy, as implemented, would be unlikely to reduce the overall prevalence of M. bovis infection in badgers, and thus the risk to cattle. Furthermore, the poor sensitivity of the serological test makes it unlikely that modifications to the live test protocol could increase its cost-effectiveness
 
Why has it taken 4 years and why is it being 'made public' now?

Norm

Posted at 10:52pm 5/11/2003 UK-time

Author wrote:
UK Badger Killings Analyzed by Expert at University of California
From – http://www.alphagalileo.org/
A UC Davis professor is co-author of a report made public today (Nov. 4) in Great Britain that says the controversial practice of killing wild badgers to prevent tuberculosis in cattle apparently does no good -- and may make matters worse.
Rosie Woodroffe, UC Davis assistant professor of conservation biology, is an authority on the biology of the European badger (Meles meles). The new report, commissioned by the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), is sure to be widely discussed in the UK, particularly by farming interests and badger protectionists. Those groups have battled for 30 years over the role that wild badgers may play as reservoirs and vectors of bovine tuberculosis, which can be transmitted through unpasteurized milk to people.
"In Britain, this is the largest wildlife controversy," Woodroffe said. "It's a massive issue not only because this is a zoonotic disease -- one that can spread from animals to humans -- but also because we just don't have that much wildlife left in Britain, and badgers are amazingly charismatic."
The badger-cattle controversy is similar to the fights between ranchers and conservationists over wolf re-introductions in the U.S. and Canada, Woodroffe said. "You have one lot saying, 'This animal is affecting my livelihood,' and another lot saying, 'This animal is beautiful and shouldn't be killed.' "
North American badgers (Taxidea taxus) do not carry bovine tuberculosis, Woodroffe noted.
Today's report by the seven-member Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB says that a field experiment begun in 1998 shows that "reactive culling," which kills badgers on and around farms where bovine tuberculosis has occurred, did not prevent future TB outbreaks in those areas.
In fact, there were 27 percent more cases of bovine TB in the culled areas than in areas where no culling occurred.
"Our finding suggests that 25 years of badger culling by the British government may have contributed nothing to the control of cattle TB, and points to the need to base government policies on sound science," Woodroffe said.
"The [reactive] culling of badgers ... will be suspended from today," said British Animal Health Minister Ben Bradshaw in a written statement to Parliament. However, another part of the experiment in which some badgers are killed proactively will continue.

                                        
                                
* This message has been edited by PoppaC on 05 Nov 2003 23:02:14 *