Clicky

Most recent
 Badger cull thoroughness
Added or updated 24 hours ago
PDF icon RFI 4007 Response to Customer 081117
Added or updated 2 weeks ago
PDF icon untitled
Added or updated 2 weeks ago
PDF icon Quantification of Mycobacterium bovis transmission in a badger vaccine field trial
Added or updated 3 weeks ago
 Is specificity of the skin test over-estimated?
Added or updated 4 weeks ago
PDF icon Badgers and TB in Cattle: the view of a dairy farmer. Land-Care. 27 February 2003.
Added or updated 4 weeks ago
 Impact of badgers on bovine TB in different areas of GB
Added or updated one month ago
 Gassing of badger setts
Added or updated 2 months ago
 Bovine TB in GB. Latest SAM data, maps and older VETNET data.
Added or updated 2 months ago
PDF icon Bovine TB strategy launched to make England disease free within 25 years. DEFRA. Published 4th July 2013.
Added or updated 2 months ago
 An example of how badger culling in the UK is being cast in a negative light
Added or updated 2 months ago
 Randomised Badger Culling Trial: Was there an overall TB increase in the adjoining lands?
Added or updated 2 months ago
PDF icon Killing thousands more badgers won't eradicate TB in cattle. R Woodroffe. New Scientist. COMMENT. 14 September 2017.
Added or updated 2 months ago
PDF icon THE VACCINATION OF CATTLE AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS. THEOBALD SMITH, M.D. Published 1908.
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Accuracy of the TB test for cattle
Added or updated 4 months ago
 Bovine TB in the UK, England, Ireland, Wales and New Zealand
Added or updated 4 months ago
PDF icon New light on the secret life of badgers. University of Oxford. 17 July 2017.
Added or updated 5 months ago
 Level of spend on culling needed to reduce TB
Added or updated 5 months ago
 Bovine TB in New Zealand
Added or updated 5 months ago
PDF icon Freedom of Information Response. APHA. ATIC1096. 9 June 2017
Added or updated 6 months ago

DEFRA may be failing in its duty of care to audit badger cull procedures

It is in farmers' and the public's interest that reasonable effort is made to control bovine TB and this includes ensuring that appropriate standards are met when badgers are culled to reduce the badger vector. Although DEFRA has assigned the task of culling badgers to culling companies1, DEFRA is still responsible as a public authoritory to carry out checks to ensure that procedures which are being followed by these companies meet standards to ensure the job is being carried out properly.

During the second year of culling DEFRA decided not to take up the Independent Export Panel's (IEP's) recommendation2 of continuing (and actually increasing) the use of cull-sample-matching to estimate cull effectiveness. In Reference 4 (see Section 4.4.14 on Page 17) the IEP concluded that protestor activity may have biased down population estimates in the capture-mark-recapture analysis but is unlikely to have introduced bias into the cull-sample-matching method. In fact, the IEP considered cull-sample-matching to give the most reliable way of measuring the proportion of badgers culled in an area. This decision by DEFRA not to take up the IEP's recommendation to continue the use of cull-sample-matching increased the need to carefully monitor the number of badgers which were being culled so that the proportion of culled badgers could be estimated.

In the Executive Summary of the Audit Reort in Reference 3, the following is stated.

It should be noted that the auditor did not have access to the culling data held by contractors conducting the cull on behalf of the NFU. Therefore an assessment of the processes followed and data collected for this integral part of the project did not form part of the audit and its data quality was not assessed.

Discussion

In my view, this apportioning of responsibility to unaccountable cull companies coupled with omission to audit processes being followed by

(a) cull companies who managed contractors and
(b) contractors who culled the badgers,

implies to a certain extent that DEFRA failed in its duty of care to monitor what was going on and to check that standards were being met.

Of particular concern is that no indication of how effort was distributed throughout the cull zones appears to have been reported.6 This leaves it open to speculation as to whether or not large accessible areas in any of the cull zones were left untouched. This is a particular worry in view of the abandonment of cull-sample-matching which the Independent Expert Panel recommended to use in future badger culls to estimate cull effectiveness.5

References

  1. Procedures which contractors need to perform before receiving payment for culling badgers. DEFRA. Response to a FoI request supplied 19 November 2014.
  2. Defra response. Pilot Badger Culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire: Report by the Independent Expert Panel. April 2014.
  3. Audit report for the 2014 badger control project. Conducted and prepared by: Independent Principal Auditor Dr. Martine Wahl, Clinical Research & Communication (CRC). Submitted to: Bovine TB Programme, Defra 16/12/2014.
  4. Pilot Badger Culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire. Report by the Independent Expert Panel. Chair: Professor Ranald Munro. Presented to DEFRA Secretary of State Owen Paterson MP, March 2014.
  5. Why did DEFRA decide not to adopt the IEP recommendation of continuing to use cull-sample-matching?
  6. Bovine TB: Distribution of effort in badger cull pilots Year 2. Reply from DEFRA to a FoI. ATIC0507. 21 January 2015.
If you would like to send to me your comments, please contact me
Last Modified 07 May 2017 07:54
Javascript is disabled