final report - ARCHIVE: Defra

6 ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOURAL
CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 The Krebs Report (Krebs et al., 1997) had little to say on economic and social considerations.
The costs of breakdown and the impact on human welfare on affected farms are presented as given
rather than the subject of future research (para. 7.2.2). There is one recommendation on economic
research – that costs and benefits of different control strategies be investigated through integrating
economic and transmission models (para. 7.7.3 f.).
6.1.2 The report also (section 5.7) refers to indications that farmers were not taking up MAFF advice on
husbandry practices to minimize contact between cattle and badgers – advice that had been issued since
1986 and routinely given to farmers experiencing an outbreak. It recommended an industry-led study,
comparing efficacy of ‘proactive husbandry methods’ designed to keep cattle away from badgers, and
badgers away from cattle. This recommendation has been partly implemented through commissioning
of Defra project SE3119 in 2005. The ISG (ibid. para. 5.7.2) also suggested that farmers’ reluctance
to follow MAFF advice was due to a mixture of ‘logistical difficulties, perceived impracticalities, cost,
conservatism and lack of convincing evidence that husbandry could have an effect’. But they made no
recommendations that research be done to test these assumptions.
6.1.3 The Independent Husbandry Panel (Phillips et al., 2001) subsequently identified several husbandry
practices (based in part on advice in the MAFF leaflet ‘TB in Cattle: Reducing the Risk’ MAFF, 1999)
through which farmers could limit transmission, particularly in pastures:
fencing off of badger setts;
rotational grazing and other adjustments to grazing management, including avoiding grazing
obvious badger latrines;
vigilance in removing and disposing of dead badgers;
fencing to keep badgers out of high-risk areas (buildings, silage pits);
raising feeding troughs in pasture to put them out of reach of badgers;
45