Most recent
PDF icon number-of-badgers-removed-up-to-end-of-2022
Added or updated 4 weeks ago
 Bovine TB in the UK, England, Ireland, Wales and New Zealand
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Cattle movements and TB restricted herds
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Does badger culling make economic sense?
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Bovine TB in GB. Latest SAM data, maps and older VETNET data.
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Data needed to achieve meaningful results in the 2013 badger culls
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Badger cull thoroughness
Added or updated 3 months ago
 An example of how badger culling in the UK is being cast in a negative light
Added or updated 3 months ago
 TB in Great Britain and Scotland
Added or updated 3 months ago
 A critique of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT)
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Launch of farmer-led TB governance in New Zealand
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Bovine TB in Ireland
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Historical record of bovine TB in Ireland and Great Britain
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Did culling affect TB infection in badgers?
Added or updated 3 months ago
 Is specificity of the skin test over-estimated?
Added or updated 4 months ago
 Number of cattle tested and slaughtered
Added or updated 6 months ago
PDF icon european-badger-responses-to-low-intensity-selective-culling-Using-mark-recapture-and-relatedness-data-to-assess-social-perturbation
Added or updated 11 months ago
PDF icon jahresstrecke-dachse-2019-2020
Added or updated 2 years ago
PDF icon 3-steps-to-implement-a-bovine-TB-contingency-plan-farmers-weekly-11-feb-2021
Added or updated 2 years ago
PDF icon bovine-tuberculosis-partnership-members-vacancies-defra-20201009
Added or updated 3 years ago

Why did DEFRA decide not to adopt the IEP recommendation of continuing to use cull-sample-matching?

In the report on the first year of badger culling in the Somerset and Gloucestershire cull zones, the Independent Expert Panel recommended that the use of cull-sample-matching should be continued.1 In fact the IEP stated the following

The cull-sample-matching approach represents the most reliable way in which to assess the effectiveness of any future culling operations.
in any future culling operations, in the pilot areas or elsewhere, hair trapping and genotyping effort should be at least as great as in the pilot culls.

See Ref 1 in Section 10.6.9 of Page 7.

In response to this recommendation, DEFRA stated the following to explain why it decided NOT to adopt the IEP recommendation in the second year of culling in 2014.

We note the conclusions of the IEP that the cull sample matching methodology is the most reliable way for determining the proportional reduction in a population. However, it is an expensive Government intervention involving pre-cull fieldwork every year and is potentially affected by interference with hair-traps by those seeking to prevent the culls.

Defra will work with Natural England and AHVLA to adopt more cost-effective methodologies to assess effectiveness of culling, that do not rely solely on measurement of population numbers. We will aim to take a more cost-effective approach to monitor progress of the cull. Rather than focusing primarily on pre-cull numerical targets based on population estimates which we now know are subject to considerable uncertainty, we will focus on more useful indicators of progress of the cull.

Does cull-sample-matching rely on pre-cull numerical targets based on population estimates?

This is in fact not the case as explained in Ref 2 in Section 4.2.4 on Page 9. Although capture-mark-recapture relies on estimating pre-cull population size, cull-sample-matching does not. This statement regarding dependence on population estimates is misleading because cull-sample-matching is a remarkably simple method which just uses the proportion of hair-trapped badgers that were culled. This proportion directly gives effectiveness.

Regarding DEFRA's stated concern regarding "interference with hair-traps by those seeking to prevent the culls", the IEP concluded in Reference 2 (see Section 4.4.14 on Page 17) 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.

Regarding cost, Reference 4 concludes that hair-trapping is not prohibitively expensive. It was this aspect of the work which was omitted in the second cull carried out in 2014. Indeed Reference 5 states that in that cull dispatched badgers were received each day at the PM facility, where carcases had their ear tips removed and sent for DNA analysis.

As an added bonus of using the cull-sample-matching method, population size may be derived by dividing the number of badgers culled by this proportion. As such, cull-sample-matching is a very simple and powerful scientific tool. Unlike all other methods which are available today and used in the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), it's use relies on very little human judgement. In view of this CSM should be playing an important role in helping to understand the benefits or otherwise of culling. In my view, analyse of the effectiveness of culling in the pilots should be based on CSM.

Further background is given in Reference 3 which asks the following question:

Will cull-sample-matching (CSM) be used in the fourth year to allow badger number reductions to be examined in another year in each cull zone and to allow badger numbers in the first and last years to be compared?


  1. Defra response. Pilot Badger Culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire: Report by the Independent Expert Panel. April 2014.
  2. 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.
  3. Pilot badger culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire and their value in planning future policy.
  4. Estimating social group size of Eurasian badgers Meles meles by genotyping remotely plucked single hairs. LJ Thomas et al. Source: Wildlife Biology, 13(2):195-207. Published By: Nordic Board for Wildlife Research. 2007.
  5. 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.
Javascript is disabled